The most common thing computers do is break, and being forthcoming and transparent about that reality while not making your platform sound like an incoherent pile of bricks teetering on a cliff above a playground is a delicate balancing act. AWS’s reliability is the stuff of legend, and on the rare occasion that it fails, they walk the messaging tightrope very well. So I was surprised to learn all you have to do to sweep away twenty years of excellence and make them sound like frothing insecure zealots is sprinkle a bit of “perhaps AWS is bad at AI” narrative on it. Then, they lose their minds.
It’s a way to gloss over or redirect flaws. Apparently, it’s a super political term from the search results I get when trying to find references to where the construct came from.
In the context of e.g. an authoritarian country, the leader is infallible, so therefore any problems the citizens experience must be because the people under the leader failed to properly execute the leaders vision. It can’t be that the leader’s vision was just wrong.