They could (and should, and clearly don’t) architect the services like this internally. There will always be some single-points-of-failure, but minimizing those should be a top priority. Just from reading their status updates it’s clear most everything is sharing way too much in terms of infrastructure and configuration.

But even this requires someone high up in the organization to have the insight that reliability requires some level of “inefficiency” — ie retaining certain highly paid staff, duplication of effort, over provisioning of resources, etc.

The irony is that the execs who could make those decisions are convinced that LLM tools obviate those needs, and shift all spare resources in that direction. But without heavy constraints from experienced humans, LLM tools will only multiply the complexity at the root cause of these sorts of outages.