Comment by cowsandmilk
2 hours ago
1. This wasn’t a strike on a single data center, it was strikes on many data centers.
2. Since that interview, AWS has started selling versions of their storage that isn’t redundant. It is not surprising that when AWS sells non-redundant storage that some data is not recoverable.
> This wasn’t a strike on a single data center, it was strikes on many data centers.
He didn't say "but if you hit many data centres then there is a problem". The premise was if you hit data centre, user won't notice, without caveat that there is a limit.
> Amazon's Matt Wood isn't worried: "If something does happen or we have a power event or there's a flood in one specific location, that data is held redundantly in other locations as well."
> Pogue asked, "I don't mean to give anyone ideas, but let's say I figured out that one of these unmarked buildings was an AWS data center, and I blew it up. Are you saying that it's so backed up and redundant that you probably wouldn't notice?"
Seems pretty silly to argue, but he certainly did say "one specific data center", and I don't think anyone even non-technical will conclude "it's safe if they all go down at once" from this statement.
That's an absurd interpretation.