My customers are small.

One of them has two servers on AWS behind a load balancer. That's the very least of resilience.

Another one has one server in a datacenter running their primary service on a single VM. That server had issues with RAM chips a couple of years ago that brought it down a few times. However they are not crazy. They made the choice to keep their data at home, bought reportedly good hardware, accepted there there might be consequences. They have other less beefy servers but they did not load balance their service on VMs on different servers.

I think that we can agree that this is no resilience. Is it by design as in "I want my service not to be reliable"? Of course not. Is it lack of quality in the design? Of course it is. But does it matter from the point of view of the users of the service?

I run several services on a VM, with no automation to restore them if there's a hardware issue with the VM host. (There is some resiliency: a managed datacentre, the servers have RAID, dual PSUs, dual network, etc.)

For over 10 years, this has not been a problem. We understand the risk, and know how to restore services onto a different VM host if necessary.

I think the more complex system (e.g. K8S) has problems when people don't fully understand it. We've had outages there, caused by misconfigurations or unexpected behaviour.