I'll say it is valid to use reliability. If I depend on some performance metric, startup, speed, etc, my dependance on it equates to reliability. Not just on/o

I'll say it is valid to use reliability. If I depend on some performance metric, startup, speed, etc, my dependance on it equates to reliability. Not just on/off but the spectrum that it produces. If a CPU doesn't operate at its 2GHz setting 60% of the time, I would say that's not reliable. When my bus shows up on time only 40% of the time - I can't rely on that bus to get me where I need to go consistently. If the GPU took 1 hour to boot, but still booted, is it reliable? What about 1 year? At some point it tips over an "personal" metric of reliability. The comparison to AWS which consistently out-performs GCP, while not explicitly, implicitly turns that into a reliability metric by setting the AWS boot time as "the standard".