I was going to say if they are using a low-cost CDN it's not that bad. My guess would be their main costs are from hosting all those high-res images, not anyth

I was going to say if they are using a low-cost CDN it's not that bad. My guess would be their main costs are from hosting all those high-res images, not anything they are doing with EC2 instances. So who cares if they pay a little more for their servers? But I did a lookup - and live.staticflickr.com is using CloudFront for their CDN. That means they're paying a 5X premium just for image hosting. No need to have the CEO make a blog post acting like he's the Jimmy Wales of image hosting... just switch to a cheap CDN already.