What do you mean? Obviously, as TFA shows and as others here pointed-out, AWS relies globally on services that are fully-dependent on us-east-1, so they aren't fully multi-region.
The claim was that that they're total hypocrites aren't multi region at all. That's totally false, the amount of redundancy in aws is staggering. But there are foundational parts which, I guess, have been too difficult to do that for (or perhaps they are redundant but the redundancy failed in this case? I dunno)
There's multiple single points of failure for their entire cloud in us-east-1.
I think it's hypocritical for them to push customers to double or triple their spend in AWS when they themselves have single points of failure on a single region.
That's absurd. It's hypocritical to describe best practices as best practices because you haven't perfectly implemented them? Either they're best practice or they aren't. The customers have the option of risking non-redundancy also, you know.
Yes it's hypocritical to push customers to pay you more money with best practices for uptime when you yourself don't follow them and your choices to not follow them actually make the best practices you pushed your customers to pay you more money for not fully work.
Hey! Pay us more money so when us-east-1 goes down you're not down (actually you'll still go down because us-east-1 is a single point of failure even for our other regions).
