We've moved from on-prem to AWS fully and we see random issues all the time while their status page shows all green, so I feel you probably have a small amount of resources in use with them or something, because what you're saying doesn't jive with what we see daily. I see you've also copy-pasted your response to other comments too, so I'll do the same with my response.
Then don't do it yourself. You're dead set on ignoring people whose experience is different than yours, wrapping yourself in an echo chamber of sorts and telling others they are wrong.
I'm not upset, I'm simply pointing out that AWS isn't the problem in any of these examples, it's the various commenter's lack of understanding about how to work in AWS that's caused these problems.
I don't think anyone is actually upset, do you? I certainly hope I haven't upset anyone... :/
This analogy is what snapped in half, not the hammer. It's more like if your hammer says right on it, "YOU NEED A SECOND HAMMER" and this is true of all hammers, it's still not the hammer's fault you didn't bring a second hammer.
And you're in other threads complaining that the people that had five hammers were still doing it wrong, that all the outages they report are fake somehow...
Even when you're supposed to have redundancy, there are still certain failure rates that are acceptable and some that are not. And redundancy doesn't solve every problem either.
What? No I'm not. Literally no where has anyone said they've built a system with redundancies as recommended by AWS and still had problems.
Of course there are unacceptable failure rates. AWS doesn't have them, and pretending like they do is simply lying to yourself to protect your own ego.
12 outages since 2011, and none of them are anything like what you're describing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Amazon_Web_Service...