Second: Air travel could be much, much cheaper if it didn’t have to be nearly 100% reliable. This would be the right trade-off to make in almost any application that doesn’t almost guarantee deaths when it fails.
For example, plenty of higher end cars in california come with summer tires that can't be used in cold weather/ice.
Even the brakes you are talking about must be replaced every X miles (depending on how new the car is, this may be between 10k and 50k miles)
Houses are not definitely designed to be 100% available. This is in fact why they fail due to fire or earthquake or other events. The design point is not instant failure, but it's also not "100% available".
Like the SRE book says, they make a tradeoff.
Gmail going down is like your car being in the shop. It's not equivalent to a plane crashing; the equivalent there would be the entire contents and history of your Gmail account being unrecoverably deleted, and you yourself had no backups. Of course, I'd still much rather have that happen a hundred times than be in one fatal plane crash ..
> [Google's infrastructure] delivers Gmail and other services to hundreds of millions of users with 99.978% availability and no scheduled downtime.
[1] https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056635?hl=en
PS. 99.978% availability translates as a downtime of ~ 2 hours/year total. Not bad! But it's when things break that we realize how performant and reliable they actually are.
Edits: various typos.
Google, I think I've only really noticed it offline once in the past 10 years or so. Not complaining at all.
It's not a good metaphor, even if it looks intriguing at first sight.
But for some reason, we HAVE TO tolerate software crapping itself once a year?
I don't accept this logic. This is just a sign of how sloppy the industry has become.
This is the reason your phone becomes obsolete after 2 years, whereas your car can continue to run after multiple decades of abuse.