Is that alone really a better metric? At least in Europe a lot of people travel during holidays, so there's less risk breaking into city flats because they're empty.
That's the whole point, before they would only need to do it on the fourth day of sickness, now you need to go to a doctor on the first day.
More workload for doctors and either sick people coming to the office infecting others, or getting the whole week off immediately.
They compute as total minutes down as a fraction of total time. What this means is that being down, say, 55min during peak-use counts the same as being down 55min when nobody is trying to use it. And congruently it counts being up when nobody is trying to use it as the same as being up when everyone is trying to use it.
Over 90 days though. They had a lot fewer users in February. (And even then, these outage durations seem to add up to more than the error budget 99.26% implies...)
I have the same sentiments, but I also get a lot of value out of simple things like memory for long-term project planning and task management. I'm willing to commit to one provider right now with the assumption that memories (and now routines) can be ported within a few hours to a new provider (for example Claude Desktop provides a prompt to export memories from other providers).
Also the memory being human readable (markdown files) makes me worry less about lock-in.
It complements https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ nicely.
As someone not living in the US, I'd find it interesting to at least have some other non-US cities available in the free plan though.
Something that I always wondered about this tool, and why I bucketed it in my mind as a "cool but ultimately boring toy" - why are all effects perfectly spherical? Surely the actual effect, especially for lower-yield devices, would be meaningfully affected by local topography and even buildings?
Being on the receiving side of that can be very frustrating. Even though users can cancel easily and without any human interaction, they cancel their credit card which then costs us multiple months of revenue in cancellation fees.
Which is why I'd not do it to a small company with a clean cancellation process and also why it is a good thing to do it to Adobe (multiple times a day ideally).
Instead of allowing 24 hours, I prefer to agree on a start time with the candidate, schedule the email to go out at that time and expect to receive the reply two hours later. That way everyone has the same amount of time.
Yes, I'd used that method too, but I'm not sure how many developers do their best work when told they have 2 hours max to complete any task. In fact we never put any recommendations on how long the task should take, just that they had a 24-hour window in which to come up with the best submission they could. In some (rare) cases submissions that didn't technically complete all the requirements exactly were considered more favorably than ones that did.
reply