Multi-region is difficult and expensive, and a lot of projects aren't that important. Most of our infrastructure just isn't that vital; we'd rather take the occasional outage than spend the time and money implementing the sort of active-active multi-region infrastructure that a "correct" implementation would use. We took the recent 8 hour us-east-1 outage on the nose and have not reconsidered this plan. It was a calculated risk that we still believe we're on the right side of. Multi-AZ but single-region is a reasonable balance of cost, difficulty, and reliability for us.

IDK, don't you end up with a bunch of extra costs? Like you're going to literally pay more money because now you have cross region replication charges, and then you're going to pay a latency cost, and then you may end up needing to overprovision your compute, etc.

All to go from, idk, 99.9% uptime to 99.95% (throwing out these numbers)? The thing is when AWS goes down so much of the internet goes down that companies don't really get called out individually.

You're saying that as if it's a walk in the park to set up and not cost prohibitive, in terms of opportunity cost and budget, especially for smaller companies.

This might be a multi-region problem. Auth0 as an example has three US regions and two of them are down.