[mbrock]

"100% Secure/Durable." Okay, if you say so. Why should I trust this? Now I have to decide whether it's more likely that I get struck by lightning or you do. Well, you spent 17 whole hours on it...

Sorry, I don't mean to diss your thing, it's a nice idea. I'm just sick of all the exaggerated reliability claims of these startup projects. Maybe I'm crazy, but if you claim "100% durability" on something fairly important, you're taking on serious responsibility. What are the odds of this site working in three years? Three months?

[genwin]

It (now) says 0%, not 100% secure/durable. I find it funny.

[m3ntat]

Yeah that's kind of tongue-in-cheek. It's most likely not either of those at this point. I just threw some stuff up there that a service "might" say if it was for realz.

[pavel_lishin]

Sorry, I only give away my reveal-only-after-death secrets to businesses that are totes for realz, not ones that are only pretending to be.

[mbrock]

Oh, ok, I almost figured. :)

[SoftwareMaven]

You gain a lot by building on other services. When you build on S3, you get their protections. A little more effort and it can be quite durable.

But you never get 100%.