wpuckering

Trolling? I'm just saying how I personally felt while watching the segment, with reasoning included, and I even said others can read into it how they will, without any judgement one way or another towards those people no matter how they decide to interpret it. I'm not even trying to defend the segment itself, I'm just sharing what I think about it and how it didn't hit me the same way as others who took offense. That's trolling? If having an opinion or a viewpoint that differs from yours is trolling, and remaining open to the idea that others may not share my way of seeing it and being totally accepting of that without any kind of stake in the greater matter, then count me in as a troll. Absolutely I'd be proud to be one in that case.

I guess you can chalk it up to I "haven't been paying attention" then. I'm not a religious viewer of all of their channels, I just watch the odd video here and there (like, maybe one or two videos every few months), and since this whole fiasco blew up I got curious enough about it to catch up on what happened, and watched the apology video. With that being my context as a viewer and technology enthusiast, that's the lens I viewed this segment through. I just didn't see anything wrong with Luke's part.

Maybe if I was a more of a regular viewer I might have seen it a bit differently, But even if it was a double entendre, for the sake of argument, it seems to me as though it were pretty tame at worst in his case?

I felt while watching the full video (before I saw this one, so I knew the entire tone and context from where this clip came from), that this particular segment had an appropriate tone, felt professional, and I just didn't feel like anything said by Luke leading up to the last two words was out of line. And when he dropped the "six nines" SLA and seemed to be "playing it cool" while doing so, my only thought was "Oh, I know what he's referring to, they're setting a high goal for HA just like other major companies out there. Nice." That was just the way it hit me personally. If others want to read into it further, well, they will I guess.

I don't know man, I just saw it as some IT guy on screen setting an SLA goal I see all the time and trying to do an "act cool" gesture. People can interpret it how they want, but that's how I saw it.

I appreciate the toned-down response, so thanks for that. As to whether or not it really was a sex joke, I can't say for sure one way or the other. It's anybody's guess. People should interpret it how they see fit. But I saw it differently and offered up my interpretation, backed with information that supported what led me to it, so that I wouldn't be thought of as a blind supporter.

I'm actually not even a supporter or regular viewer of them at all (I've watched the odd video here and there, just on occasion). Just someone who heard about all of this and got curious. I watched the apology video and that segment struck me as innocent for the reasons I stated. And it's totally fair if someone wants to interpret it differently. I just think it's unfair to conclude with 100% certainty that it must have been a sex joke and therefore everyone who watched it should be offended by it.

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.

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.

I defended one specific segment which seemed unfairly taken out of context, with support for why I thought so, and remained as objective as I could about it. I never commented on anything else besides that one specific segment, and I never expressed any support for LMG as a whole (full disclosure, I think they've done some awful things they need to be held accountable for). But that makes me some kind of LMG apologist?

Okay. I don't see what else I can say about that accusation.

It doesn't matter if the SLA is realistically reachable or not, it's basically a marketing meme and one of the most common target SLAs in IT ("target" doesn't mean you can actually reach it, you're aiming for it though).

See here: https://lemmy.pub/comment/1046563

"Six nines" is practically a meme in the IT infrastructure and DevOps world, and has nothing at all to do with any kind of sex joke. For years "six nines" has been touted as the pinnacle SLA target for high availability and uptime of services. You'll find references all over the Internet to this SLA from all kind of companies, both big and small, in their marketing.

Examples from a quick and random Google search:

• "NetApp’s six nines guarantee": https://www.netapp.com/blog/asa-san-storage/
• "CenturyLink Targets Six Nines": https://availabilitydigest.com/public_articles/1106/centruylink_six_nines.pdf
• "HPE Get 6-Nines Guarantee [...]": https://www.hpe.com/psnow/doc/4aa5-2846enw

Companies such as Microsoft, Amazon (AWS specifically) and Google tout the "six nines" as their HA SLA in loads of their marketing, and it's easy to find.

I could go on forever but that should give you an idea. You can read more about "The Rule Of Nines" here if you're interested: https://vastdata.com/blog/the-rule-of-nines

My point is, this isn't a figure they made up for a sex joke. It's a very real SLA that is explicitly touted in IT marketing all over the Internet and has been for some time.

So where does the "innuendo" come from then? The uninformed viewer's own imagination, I think. Because from my perspective, I just see an IT guy trying to brag about how he's going to ensure his infrastructure reaches a slick "six nines" target for high availability, snapping his fingers and showboating the camera in pride about it.

It's up to the viewer to interpret what they see, of course, but it's also wrong once you know what the true intention more likely was to continue to insist that it was something else entirely. If anything, what he really meant is inconclusive, I personally think it's a real stretch to assume it was a sex joke.

To be fair to Luke, in regards to the "six nines" comment in the video that a lot of people think is part of a sex joke (and how the video is framing it), in the proper context he was talking about IT infrastructure and this comment actually refers to a target for high availability: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_availability

99.9999% availability (ie. uptime) = "six nines"

He was basically saying that they're setting a target for higher availability of their infrastructure, because it's been unstable at times, causing staff frustration and delaying certain workflows.

I can't blame a lot of average people who don't work in any sort of IT field for confusing it with the "69" sex position (wondering what the heck "six nines" means), but that's not at all what he was making reference to.

I'm not at all defending anything else in relation to this debacle besides this unfair portrayal of this particular snippet.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, I think it's pretty sad that pistol fingers and a wink these days apparently must mean you're making a sex joke (or are trying to offend people in some other way). As a kid I remember this gesture being used to "act cool". We did it all the time back then, and it was all in fun. Luke's from my generation, so maybe he thought the same, or maybe we didn't get the memo that this gesture is off-limits now.

Whoever thought it was good at coding? That's not what it's designed for. It might get lucky and spit out somewhat functional code sometimes based on the prompt, but it never constructed any of that itself. Not truly. It's conceptually Googling what it thinks it needs, copying and pasting together an answer that seems like it might be right, and going "Here, I made this". It might be functional, it might be pure garbage. It's a gamble.

You're better off just writing your own code from the beginning. It's likely going to be more efficient anyways, and you'll properly understand what it does.