One of the vanishingly small set of issues I mentioned.

It is true, and obvious, that GCP and AWS and Azure use different architectures. It does not obviously follow that any of those architectures are inherently more reliable. And even if it did, it doesn't obviously follow that any of the platforms are inherently more reliable due to a specific architectural decision.

Like, all cloud providers still have regional outages.

I think you should have started this discussion by disclosing you work at Google...

> One of the vanishingly small set of issues

At your scale, this attitude is even more concerning since the rare event at scale is not rare anymore.

I think you're abusing the saying "at scale, rare events aren't rare" (https://longform.asmartbear.com/scale-rare/ etc.) here. It is true that when you are running thousands of machines, events that happen rarely happen often, but that scale usually becomes relevant at thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of things (https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive...).

That concept is useful when the scale of things you have is the same order of magnitude as the rate of failure. But we clearly don't have that here, because even at scale, these events aren't common. Like I said, there have been, across all cloud providers, less than a handful over a decade.

Like, you seem to be proclaiming that these kinds of events are common and, well, no, they aren't. That's why they make the top of HN when they do happen.