this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2025
24 points (100.0% liked)
Pulse of Truth
1694 readers
46 users here now
Cyber Security news and links to cyber security stories that could make you go hmmm. The content is exactly as it is consumed through RSS feeds and wont be edited (except for the occasional encoding errors).
This community is automagically fed by an instance of Dittybopper.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because most prices are scaling down if you increase the use.
Buy 1 server -> pay 1 money units
Buy 100 servers -> pay 90 money units
Buy 10000 servers -> pay 8500 money units
If you decrease the bought amount and distribute it among multiple suppliers, you pay more, because you have multiple lower tier packages.
And I'm pretty sure they have at least a bit something like that, because while signal was slow, it didn't fail completely like other stuff.
And no the response wasn't pathetic, your misunderstanding of basic economics is, to stay in your aggressive style
Don't forget cost to develop on multiple platforms simultaneously. Triplication of vendor specific functionality
Save some pennies to keep a single point of failure, then. I don't care if these shit services prove how inept they are.
It's not like they'd have to keep equal amounts in all zones. It's not like they'd have to have double the capacity. Your inability to imagine an economical solution without gross expenditure is... indeed, pathetic.
It's okay to shut your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about.
lol! If you think it's impossible, you're yet again only proving how fucking pathetic and rather dim you are. Good job sucking dick for big tech.
Failover between servers isn't new. Failover between regions isn't new. Failover between services is BARELY a step past that.
Seriously, if you're too stupid to understand that, that is very much a YOU problem.