Want to wade into the snowy sandy surf of the abyss? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid.
Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful youāll near-instantly regret.
Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.
If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cutānāpaste it into its own post ā thereās no quota for posting and the bar really isnāt that high.
The post Xitter web has spawned so many āesotericā right wing freaks, but thereās no appropriate sneer-space for them. Iām talking redscare-ish, reality challenged āculture criticsā who write about everything but understand nothing. Iām talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. Theyāre inescapable at this point, yet I donāt see them mocked (as much as they should be)
Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldnāt be surgeons because they didnāt believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I canāt escape them, I would love to sneer at them.
(Credit and/or blame to David Gerard for starting this.)
Hold on now, the uptime number contains two digits that are nines! The image itself has four nines in total!
Canāt believe Iām nerd-sniped this easily. Very technically, the point at which a service should be considered unreliable or down is at Ī³ nines, where Ī³ = 0.9030899869919434ā¦ is a transcendental constant. Ī³ nines is exactly 87.5% availability, or 7/8 availability, and itās the point at which a serviceās availability might as well be random. (Another one of the local complexity theorists can explain why itās 7/8 and not 1/2.)
ā¦ why 7/8?
Suppose a bullshitter brings up a number of distinct Boolean claims and some tangled pile of connections between them, such that they hope to convince you that at least one connection is plausible. Without loss of generality, we can reduce this to 3-satisfiability in polynomial time: we can quickly produce a list of subconnections where each subconnection relates exactly three claims. Then, assuming the bullshitter is uniformly random, the probability that any particular subconnection is satisfied is 7/8. Therefore, if a bullshitter tries to overwhelm you with any pile of claims which sounds plausible, the threshold for plausibility has to be at least 7/8 in order to distinguish from random noise.
Bravo. The farthest i could get is 2/3 assuming the following model: xā is a random number between 0 and 1, xā between xā and 1, and so on. If the service breaks at xā, gets fixed at xā, breaks again at xā, etc. availability is 2/3.
We can see that one 9 of availability is 90% = 0.9, two 9s is 99% = 0.99, three 9s is 99.9% = 0.999, etc. In general, for positive integers n, n 9s of availability is 1 - (1/10)^n, and we can extrapolate that to non-integer values of n. The value Ī³ needed for 87.5% availability is the solution to 1 - (1/10)^Ī³ = 7/8, or Ī³ = log_10(8) = 0.903089987. Ī³ is transcendental by Gelfond-Schneider (see this for a reference proof).
Right now, Sora is at zero 9s of availability.
Alas, foiled again! Nobody said they had to be leading 9s!
For my own services Iām aiming for .999999% of uptime
89.90999999ā¦% uptime š