I just wrote a longer piece, but deleted it because I realized what I was thinking. I think this is the right way around, because I lean towards the "technical

I just wrote a longer piece, but deleted it because I realized what I was thinking. I think this is the right way around, because I lean towards the "technically correct" side here. "Technically correct" always carries a bit of an ivory tower snobby attitude to me. After all, the tech I'm working with has proven and working client side load balancing and retries, so there is no server side load balancing necessary. That's technically correct if you observe the system in isolation. And it's also correct that the bad software interfacing with it should fix their implementation. It's just not correct in practice if terrible software, implementation bugs, or all manner of things beyond a simple, correct implementation start interfacing with the system. Then even a technically or clinically or theoretically correct system will fall apart because there's mud in places where mud shouldn't be able to get to. After all, a patch in a month won't help me with a preventable outage tomorrow.