I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories.
Microsoft bought Github and migrated to Azure, which is explains the findings. The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure.
I mean honestly, as though there isn't one single person competent enough to read some logs and horizontally scale a few read only dbs to meet demand? That's not it
> I think you need to broaden your focus here - I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories.
This is the opposite of my recollection, actually. I distinctly remember having conversations about Github struggling to scale well before MS was involved, and people claiming that MS had somehow saved Github because it had stabilized and begun adding features again.
> The query performance was fine before they started serving from Azure.
This may be correct though. The Azure migration seems more aligned with the timeline of struggling to scale.
I'm skeptical about that page's accuracy. For example, if you go to the breakdown tab, it shows Actions having 100% availability when the graph starts (Apr 2016), yet Actions didn't even exist until late 2018, and wasn't GA until a full year after that. So if the math behind the "average" tab is treating NULLs as 100% uptime, this just isn't a correct measurement.
The page also notes it obtains its data from the official status page, but big tech companies have been known to under-report outages. My general sense is they've gotten better about this in recent years; if so, that means historical data will give an erroneously rosy picture of uptime.
We can clearly draw a conclusion that their availability is getting worse, but that's not what your original comment claimed.
You said "I can't really remember any significant downtime before the Microsoft acquisition and the data supports my memories", but my memories differ (as do other commenters), and the accuracy of the supporting data seems questionable.
Always gonna happen. Oil margins are gigantic and they'll use every dime of runway they can. Electric is better in every single way and batteries tech is only making that more true every day. The dinosaurs won't go quietly into the night.
> encumbered only by increasingly slower animations or boneheaded notifications or apps stealing focus as they spin themselves up
> Instead, go into a three year period of major OS refactoring. Speed above all.
I cannot understand why a slow mac is acceptable at any level at all. The icons need a second to load in the applications drawer! Jobs would have thrown this thing across the room at the first MVP demo
I have experienced 0 friction swapping between the 2 models, in fact pitting them against eachother has resulted in the highest success rate for me so far.
In Alabama regulatory capture is such that installing solar panels attached to the grid incurs fees higher than just buying the electricity from Alabama Power.
Why not install and not attach to the grid? My understanding is if you have them attached to batteries and not feeding back it is considered off grid in some places.
I don't know anything about Alabama but in California you generally can't create off-grid developments without permission from a local authority, because it's a recognized problem that "off-grid" systems are often under specified, leading to danger for the occupants. And nobody really wants off-grid to proliferate because it would tend to concentrate the costs of the grid upon the remaining users who will be the ones least able to afford it.
For a place that was two miles from a power line, I would think anyone would approve of off-grid.
> Alabama Power, with approval from the Alabama PSC, charges residential solar customers a monthly fee of $5.41 per kilowatt based on the size of their solar system
> Alabama Power's residential electricity rates generally range from approximately 11 to 13 cents per kWh, plus a $14.50 monthly base charge
Both ibuprofen and naproxen sodium are NSAIDs and are bad for your kidneys especially in long term. I had kidney failure due to what was eventually diagnosed as an autoimmune disease but they first thing the ER doctor will ask is if you have been taking NSAIDs. My nephrologists told be its still safe to take acetaminophen at the proper dose.
None of us are your doctors but Naproxen has well-known gastric issues up to ulcers and stomach bleeding which is why it's advised to be taken with food and why it's also often prescribed with a PPI or H2 Antagonist. Cox-2 selectives such as Celecoxib greatly reduce this risk but seem to be associated with some small cardiovascular risk (admittedly this is a feature of all NSAIDs though less so in Naproxen apparently).
Cardiovascular risk increase is not a feature of aspirin, the original NSAID. Aspirin lessens cardiovascular risk which is why we give it to patients in the initial stages of a heart attack: It decreases the likelihood of further clotting.
Some believe naproxen sodium is worse for you because it lasts longer. Longer duration for reduced mucous membrane coverage in your stomach and intestine. Longer duration for reduced blood flow to your kidneys.
I would definitely have a chat with a doctor about it.
I had to use naproxen for some time as most effective way to control inflammation. Actually the only way, ibuprofen had some effect only in horse dozes. After visiting doctor, analyses, checking available sources was able to eliminate the reason of inflammation. Apparently it was a well known problem/solution. So far so good. Not sure about the long lasting effects of naproxen use.
Whenever its prescribed here, its paired with some sort of intestine protection medicine to stop it burning holes in your stomach/intenstines
Ibuprofen is much safer, so long as you eat with it.
Paracetamol is also safer, so long as you don't OD.
BUT! so long as you stay below 4 grams a day, you'll be safe. (yes yes, in some situations you can take double, but unless you are under supervision, thats asking for liver pain.)
In the US, Aleve is the name-brand pill for naproxen, available in grocery stores next to everything else. I have a bottle of 160 gelcaps. Each pill is 220mg naproxen sodium or in parentheses 200 mg of naproxen. The advertised effect is 12 hours / all day, getting anywhere near 4g would only happen in a suicidal "swallow bottle of pills" situation.
GP meant 4g is the safe limit to paracetamol (hence "liver pain"). About 8 typical doses over 24 hours. It's little known amongst the general population, who have the occasional extreme of people taking double doses every few hours
That combo is naproxen/esomeprazole. The brand name is Vimovo, but they don't have a patent, so you can get it as a generic. To work, though, it has to be taken 30 minutes before food.
reply