splitting the status page like they do, to the point where it is only a bit of humourous exaggeration to say that they track broken `git push` and `git pull` separately, is a sleight of hand / accounting / SLA-fudging that we should not excuse

there is a subset of the site that pretty much everyone uses — git, issues, pull requests, actions — and if any part of that is broken then the site is broken and the status page should indicate how often this happens

▲

remus 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> splitting the status page like they do, to the point where it is only a bit of humourous exaggeration to say that they track broken `git push` and `git pull` separately, is a sleight of hand / accounting / SLA-fudging that we should not excuse

This is a pretty ungenerous take. You could look at it the other way: if I don't use actions then it's useful for me to know that only actions are broken, and I can continue in my normal usage. If you bundle everything up then the status page is reporting an unhelpful false positive for me.

	▲	tensegrist 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		you can do both: report a number that shows how often your service as a whole is degraded, with a breakdown for individual components example (not sponsored, i barely use codex and today's the first time i've ever had to look at this page; i don't know how much they're fudging the individual numbers or not reporting minor incidents): https://status.openai.com/ most people who use chatgpt don't use all of the components under the "ChatGPT" heading. for codex, i don't use the vscode extension or codex web. etc

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]