[fallous]

Your electricity to servers IS a single point of failure, if all you do is depend upon the power company to reliably feed power. There is a reason that co-location centers have UPS and generator backups for power.

It may have been unthinkable to some casual observers that creating a giant single point of failure for the internet was a bad idea but it was entirely thinkable to others.

[locknitpicker]

> Your electricity to servers IS a single point of failure, if all you do is depend upon the power company to reliably feed power.

I think you quite didn't got the point. The whole point is that putting together a system architecture that considers Cloudflare is a single point of failure is like designing a system architecture that considers a power supplier a single point of failure. Technically they can be considered that if you really really want to, but not only are things irredeemably broken when those failure modes are triggered but also they themselves are by far expected to be the most reliable components of your systems due to their design and SLAs that is pointless to waste time and resources mitigating such a scenario.

[fallous]

You're arguing from an end-user perspective, I'm pointing out that the Internet wasn't designed to solve easy but fragile problems but instead was intended to be a resilient network capable of surviving failures and route around them.

"I want to use a power tool and simply plug it into a wall" is not the same class of problem as "we're using a heart-lung machine during this bypass operation and power loss results in dead patients."

The widespread dependence upon Cloudflare has resulted in the "heart-lung machine" problem of DNS, among other things, being "solved" by a "power tool" class of solution.