Dont even need to watch the whole video. This is all you gotta see.

  • Mishmash2000@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    LOL That number of nines is specifically referenced by an industry dominated by tech bros though. It could just as easily be 5 9s or 7 9s but for some reason it has to be 6 9s? And I know it’s a recurring joke for LTT but that doesn’t mean you should put it, or ANY joke into an apology video of all things?! What were they THINKING?! Besides it’s a tired and souless attempt at humour that should’ve been retired years ago

    • wpuckering@lm.williampuckering.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      LOL That number of nines is specifically referenced by an industry dominated by tech bros though. It could just as easily be 5 9s or 7 9s but for some reason it has to be 6 9s?

      Actually, the “nines” go all the way from “one nine” through “nine nines”, exactly the way you wondered about when you said “It could just as easily be […]”. It’s actually exactly that way, and the chart that shows this is found in my first post on the linked Wikipedia article. Refer to the “Percentage calculation” chart about “High availability”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability

      “Six nines” is just another SLA calculation on the chart, but is one of the most commonly referenced in marketing material in the industy. That’s why you see a lot more about it online than the other percentages, but you see reference to the others out there (ie. Amazon references “nine nines” in their S3 object storage marketing in terms of data durability). “Six nines” roughly corresponds to 30 seconds of downtime per year. Maybe it’s used more often because that’s an easy SLA to remember.

      Anyway, the point is that it’s not some tech bro-dominated industry inside sex joke. It’s a real, valid SLA, and it’s not the only one. Just the most commonly referenced.

      • Mishmash2000@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I’m fullly aware of all the other 9s used which is why I suggested they could just as easily say they’re aiming for 7 9s or as Amazon does, 9 9s or any other basically impossible to hit asperational goal that’s nice to try for but for SOME REASON the most often quoted / used one is 6 9s? Coincidence you say? Is it super important to aim for 30 seconds per year versus about 5 min per year? Why not aim for 3 seconds / year rather than 30 seconds? Because then you can’t say 6 9 Nice! That’s literally the only reason right?

        • wpuckering@lm.williampuckering.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t know man. It’s a valid SLA target which is often and widely used in the industry at large, it’s almost like muscle memory to some people to just cite it when talking about HA. And even if they regularly make “69” jokes or whatever on their channels, I personally didn’t read far enough into it in this segment of the video to get the impression that they might be making a sex joke. There was no lead-up to one or anything in the original context. All he said at the end of his segment was that their goal was “six nines” plus the “act cool” pose (how I personally interpreted it). And I just felt like “Okay, so they’re aiming for the usual SLA you see most big companies aiming for”. Like, that’s all that went through my mind personally.

          If anything, maybe it’s inconclusive if it was meant as an actual sex joke. I said in my original post I could see how uninformed viewers might see it differently, so I’m trying to leave some leeway for understanding of how it might have made others feel.

          I’m not saying 100% it couldn’t be one, but I personally didn’t feel like it was. Everyone is free to interpret it how they want, I just wanted to point out that he used a real term that isn’t inherently sexual (and lots of people don’t know about it), so it’s a possibility he actually just meant to cite a real SLA to those in-the-know.