> We don't typically share this level of technical detail about our infrastructure, but the scope and complexity of these issues justified a more comprehensive explanation.

Layered in aggrandizing. You host a service, people give you money.

▲

levocardia 4 days ago | parent [-]

No, what that statement means is "we know that if we just say 'we weren't downgrading performance to save money', you won't believe us, so here is a deep dive on the actual reason it happened"

	▲	FossQuestion 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What deep dive? They explained one of the three issues. and never offered a real solution to the problems. their action items list is just "We will test better next time..."
	▲	pluto_modadic 4 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		they're big, and we expect proper behavior out of them when they mess up. that includes public details.
	▲	bravetraveler 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They can still do the deep dive, that is absolutely convincing. They likely did: distracted before I could finish [work, unfortunately - incident of our own] My criticism is it's 'puffy'. The 'scope and complexity' for a public postmortem is 'customer-facing'. Otherwise it's a tree/forest scenario. One might say 'the lady doth protest too much'; this should be routine. It is, elsewhere: see Cloud, Web Hosting, PBX. Pick your decade.