0x0@lemmy.zip to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 13 hours agoGitHub Outages Since Microslop Acquisitionlemmy.zipexternal-linkmessage-square28fedilinkarrow-up1529arrow-down18
arrow-up1521arrow-down1external-linkGitHub Outages Since Microslop Acquisitionlemmy.zip0x0@lemmy.zip to Technology@lemmy.zipEnglish · 13 hours agomessage-square28fedilink
minus-squareDahGangalang@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up43arrow-down1·12 hours agoObv a gross looking chart, but I am bothered that the left hand scale is trimmed off. I expect those are 10% increments, but wouldn’t be shocked if Original was like 99.0, 98.0, 97.0, etc.
minus-squareVogi@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up36·12 hours agoYou’d be surprised: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/ But weirdly enough it feels much worse using gh professionally than the scale makes it seem.
minus-squarelemmyman@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·edit-29 hours agoThe graph is neat. Saving some people a click: the cut-off y scale in the OP image is in 0.1% increments. So the lowest point is a little above 99.5%
minus-squareraspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 hours agoThank you! I was thinking “it can’t just be me that’s bothered”
Obv a gross looking chart, but I am bothered that the left hand scale is trimmed off. I expect those are 10% increments, but wouldn’t be shocked if Original was like 99.0, 98.0, 97.0, etc.
You’d be surprised: https://damrnelson.github.io/github-historical-uptime/
But weirdly enough it feels much worse using gh professionally than the scale makes it seem.
The graph is neat.
Saving some people a click: the cut-off y scale in the OP image is in 0.1% increments. So the lowest point is a little above 99.5%
Thank you! I was thinking “it can’t just be me that’s bothered”