zlacker

From a societal view it is worse when everything is down at once. Leads to a less resilient society: It is not great if I can't buy essentials from one store because their payment system is down (this happened to one super market chain in Sweden due to a hacker attack some years ago, took weeks to fully fix everything, and then there was that whole Crowdstrike debacle globally more recently).

It is far worse if all of the competitors are down at once. To some extent you can and should have a little bit of stock at home (water, food, medicine, ways to stay warm, etc) but not everything is practical to do so with (gasoline for example, which could have knock on effects on delivery of other goods).

>>Vorpal+(OP)
it's not that simple, no?

users want to do things, if their goal depends on a complex chain of functions (provided by various semi-independent services) then the ideal setup would be to have redundant providers and users could simply "load balance" between them and that separate high-level providers' uptime state is clustered (meaning that when Google is unavailable Bing is up, and when Random Site A, goes down their payment provider goes down too, etc..)

So ideally sites would somehow sort themselves nearly to separate availability groups.

Otherwise simply having a lot of uncorrelated downtimes doesn't help (if we count the sum of downtime experienced by people). Though again it gets complicated by the downtime percentage, because likely there's a phase shift between the states when user can mostly complete their goals and when they cannot because too many cascading failures.