I'll put in a vote in favor of cute names, in the specific scenario of talking (out loud) about specific services - it's less clunky and personally, way easier

I'll put in a vote in favor of cute names, in the specific scenario of talking (out loud) about specific services - it's less clunky and personally, way easier to correctly parse cute names than common-words-which-may-combine-into-a-service-name. To take some examples from public cloud: "We can put that data in Cloud Storage Archive" vs. "We can put that data in Glacier" "This service runs as a function in Azure Functions" vs. "This service runs as a Lambda function" "Use the standard machine image" vs. "Use the standard AMI" On the other hand, I did work on a system where all the services were spaceship names, and that was a nightmare to onboard people onto... echoes of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8OnoxKotPQ , especially as one was named Galactica