> 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.

The Iranians hit one specific data centre at a time, no?

Correct. Again, I don't think the implication you're making (that someone reading the original comment will think that is safe from a data recovery standpoint) is one any reasonable reader will make.

That's an absurd interpretation.

Is there anything more loathsome than an interviewee who fails to do the journalist's job for them?