The point of his comment was that if Amazon have a fire that they'll deal with the issue, you won't have to do anything.
if your instances go down you're going to have to deal with it.
Yes, absolutely. Which means you need to architect and run expecting failure, which is so much different than traditional apps. (I am calling architectures 10 years old, "traditional"; that is funny.)
you're supposed to architect assuming failure no matter what. it's been like this for years. most engineers just choose to ignore best practices.
aws is just the first provider to explicitly tell their users "we don't care if your servers go down. tough cookies." which is what they all should have been doing in the first place.
And isn't it just wonderful how I don't have to give any fucks at all?
well, it wasn't in production yet, but it could happen in production, and will. my point was that aws is still metal servers in racks.