So I think the practical difference is mostly between praising S3 (as synonym for "the cloud" when Amazon wasn't even mentioned, no less) and warning at least to use it diligently, which when it comes to costs might often be not using it at all.
The context of the conversation is on tape drives which is about mass storage.
The comment I replied to said:
> someone else's server in Virgina
While everyone may operate there now it was exceedingly common in mu experience to be referring to AWS when referencing Dulles / Ashburn / NoVA or just Virginia since AWS started there first.
So I figure S3 is the correct comparison to not having a 50 TB tape drive under your desk when "the cloud" is being discussed.
So I think the practical difference is mostly between praising S3 (as synonym for "the cloud" when Amazon wasn't even mentioned, no less) and warning at least to use it diligently, which when it comes to costs might often be not using it at all.