I think 2) is much more likely than 1).

So why stick with git? Is it feasible to make a new VCS that scales better if you start from scratch?

Obviously getting adoption of something else would be a challenge. But Github has enough market-share that they could plausibly pull this off. Particularly using costs or reliability to incentivize migration.

(Not saying that this would necessarily be good for the community in general but I think good for Github.)

Some people though society was paying them lots of money to type code into an editor. But that was never true - people and businesses were paying them to solve problems.

And in-video ads like these are even less defensible given that they still show up when people are paying YouTube (and creators by extension) to not display ads.

But came here to say the same thing. There is an advertising campaign in SF right now to encourage people to vote to give Muni more money (again) in November, because they can't cover their essential costs. This...looks pretty non-essential to their core mission to me.

They should have done everything they can inside their org to cut costs, before going to ask residents to give them more money.

Now I hope - maybe this is primarily funded by donations / grants or volunteer work, and SFMTA contributes very little to this. If so great - but it would have been wise for them be very clear about that.

Sometimes the level of incompetence / lack of care in organizations like this astounds me. I understand issues like this can be complicated and systemic but it honestly makes me think very poorly of the technologists building these systems in government.

An Army unit crossing rocky and muddy terrain might want tracked vehicles and tanks. I don't need that in a vehicle I drive 10 minutes to the office in the city.

Azure's success as a cloud provider is mostly a result of their sales team and having an existing relationship with non-technical leadership. "We already pay them for Office and Exchange, let's just buy this new 'cloud' thing from them too".

Azure is barely considered an option at all within tech companies, yet is surprisingly widely adopted by non-technical companies that don't know any better (ie, that don't have a technical / engineering voice or representation within leadership).

AWS = Likely technically the best, for now. Mostly unreasonable pricing, and less motivation to seriously negotiate given they are the 'default' cloud provider for most of the industry. Kind of feels like they have peaked though, and are slipping more recently. Inevitable, or bad leadership changes?

OCI = New-comer, attractive pricing and hungry for business. Might be able to avoid mistakes other providers have made? Reliability struggles though. Parent company has a bad reputation in some circles - but probably not with decision makers. Making huge (unwise?) investments - that will either come crashing down in 5 years, or seriously pay off. Layoffs, but going for massive growth...huh?

GCP = Notably different underlying technical choices than other providers. Folks are maybe a bit less pragmatic, and more academic. This helps them in unique services (Spanner?) but hurts in most other areas. They've matured, and are btwn AWS and OCI in reliability. They are probably not as hungry for business as they should be given how far behind they are.

The precipitous decline was already happening long before LLM's dealt the final blow.