The reality is you can take months to plan it , have it be really expensive to try to get 100% accurate, but that may not be the most efficient way.
It may be better from a trade off perspective to take this approach way more frequently than we realize.
I mean... it's Musk. The shit-on-Musk phenomenon has transcended normality. Reddit has about six subreddits that do nothing apart from constantly shit on him. Twitter is infested with users/bots that do nothing apart from post the 'this mf paid for twitter' meme. Articles like this come out week after week after week. And yet, the site stays up and the products, by and large, work.
It's just one of those things that presumably makes sense to somebody but doesn't to me.
Normal journalism at work: one people pays, the other one writes.
> The article does note that Musk himself eventually said he shouldn’t have done this and it did cause a fair bit of problems for the site, including the disastrous “Twitter Spaces” where Ron DeSantis tried to launch his Presidential campaign.
I mean, the DeSantis thing was _extremely funny_, and very much a gift to the internet, but I doubt Musk would think of it as 'working out'.
However, even if it _had_ worked out without incident (it did not), it was _still a very bad idea_. If you jump out a third floor window, well, your odds of surviving that are actually _not bad_, but it's generally advisable to take the stairs anyway.
What would be an "acceptable excuse for high risk behavior" ?
I thought the idea was to learn from past mistakes, not to find scapegoats.
There's plenty of real world scenarios that could have taken out that data center and the Twitter engineering team would have been scrambling to fix, just the same.
I read somewhere once that v1 of chaos monkey was the Netflix CEO randomly pulling cables in a data center to prove the point that systems needed rugged designs. Not all too different.
It's a great test and if you do it with enough confidence it really sells your skills.
