No its like saying you should buy a new battery after your battery dies. Yeah, its nice to have a spare battery around i guess but its not like your battery dying will significantly ruin your finances
It's more like buying the plug-in version after the battery dies...
You already experienced the downtime, so if not having downtime was a goal you already failed. If avoiding downtime is not important then there's no reason to add anti-downtime capability to your system. The most charitable modeling of this approach is that the downtime incident may prompt one to realize that avoiding downtime actually is an important property for their system to possess.
The actual charitable model is that you expect close to zero attacks, but if you actually get hit your expected rate of future attacks goes up by an order of magnitude or two. And it's that change in expectations that gets you to buy protection.
You don't care about going down once, you do care about frequent outages. And you know this from the start, you don't realize it later.
Yes, the original assessment was wrong. Such things happen all the time to reasonable people.
The person you were describing in your "most charitable" version above was not being reasonable. They didn't just underestimate the petty anger of the internet, they were being fundamentally foolish about their own desires. That's why I replied, to show you a different way someone could end up in this position.
