Rather, they're asking "What if there was a 30 day outage of us-east-1" - so anyone who isn't multi-region or multi-cloud loses everything, including backups, AMIs, and control plane access.
(FWIW I agree with people disagreeing with the worry levels in the article - a solar storm last seen in 1859 is more likely than a software bug? Ha!)
Yeah, it's kind of "incredible" that they'd be gone for so long, but I've been on AWS during long outages before and it's never certain how long it will go on for and if data will be kept.
We assume too much I think of our providers, and I believe that's what the post is about. If you already _know_ AWS will be down for 30 days then you can make an informed decision based on that.
For me, there's no difference between 8 hours or 80, if you're down more than 8hrs I'm going to activate my redundancies. But: I have redundancies. Many people don't.
This is related to Tim's mention of climate change - lately, '100-year' and '10-year' storms are happening more often. It's possible the changes to our climate have turned those 100-year storms into 10-year storms, but we may not know until the observations and climate models catch up.
This is a joke, right? The _real_ degradation map of us-east-1 of the last 5 years looks significantly worse than my non-UPS backed Home PC in Sweden.
Personally I'm not looking at us-east-1 as reliable at all; they even suffered a "harddrive crash" https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/technology/amazon-aws-...