So why not have EC2s have a 50% SLA. Have them all force quit at some random interval between 2 hours and 200 hours, guaranteed. Have EBS volumes just corrupt y

So why not have EC2s have a 50% SLA. Have them all force quit at some random interval between 2 hours and 200 hours, guaranteed. Have EBS volumes just corrupt your data every week. Why bother with SLAs at all when the solution is buy more redundant resources? Or how about having actually reliable primitives? I don't disagree, if you need extreme reliability build your infra to handle multi-az, even multi-region outages. But sometimes I'd rather just have an instance just stay online instead of having to pay for it three times over and still have it reasonably be expected to not corrupt itself. Hypervisor and storage technology could make that happen, as it's true on other clouds and has been true in the data center for decades. I can have an instance on GCP with it's block storage having 99.9999% durability. I can't do the same with gp3 on AWS without having to deal with the complexity of clustering and all it's headaches and costs, the volume has a durability of 99.95%. Why is that an unreasonable ask?