Are you referring to the link in the title? It is true that the company was hosting cardiac patient monitoring on EC2. This was not life threatening infrastructure, but that is not implied by the HN title. How is it linkbait?
The poster on Amazon's forum misrepresented the severity of the infrastructure and tries to backpedal later on in the thread. This is an example of someone using EC2 and fucking up, firstly for hosting production level infrastructure without backups, and secondly for misrepresenting the importance of the infrastructure in an attempt to get more technical support, making them look liable for some sort of medical malpractice.
The poster probably panicked when they realised their first mistake, and thought they were showing that they were trying to get back in control. I don't think the poster was totally stupid, maybe she/he didn't understand the risks of EC2, or maybe it wasn't even their decision to have no backups --- in which case they should have pressed harder at meetings or refused to continue to work on the project. And then they panicked. We can all learn something from this.
The poster on Amazon's forum misrepresented the severity of the infrastructure and tries to backpedal later on in the thread. This is an example of someone using EC2 and fucking up, firstly for hosting production level infrastructure without backups, and secondly for misrepresenting the importance of the infrastructure in an attempt to get more technical support, making them look liable for some sort of medical malpractice.
The poster probably panicked when they realised their first mistake, and thought they were showing that they were trying to get back in control. I don't think the poster was totally stupid, maybe she/he didn't understand the risks of EC2, or maybe it wasn't even their decision to have no backups --- in which case they should have pressed harder at meetings or refused to continue to work on the project. And then they panicked. We can all learn something from this.