> the GitHub team is shit, their tech stack is shit

1) Criticism of being unable to achieve service is not a fault of the individual; it simply is a fault of the system. You can criticise the system, it's permissible. Especially if they have more resources than many countries and some of the best tech talent in the world on staff.

2) Their tech stack is shit, and they've gone on record for years defending it, quite arrogantly in some cases, as if nobody can possibly know anything unless they've done github (even if you've done things which scale, or someone comes in with an even larger scale, the people on HN will happily say "but it's not github" which is valid but not intellectually curious or open).

Azure is terrible and it's being foisted on the team: even if they found some technical people to put at the top who are saying it'll be ok: it is a pretty cruel platform to use.

I've personally had a few conversations about their choice of relational database which were handled pretty defensively, and I think we're all somewhat cognisant of their frontend rewrite.

It's a waste of time to rewrite the UI and push AI tools when you can't even keep the site lit.

I have nothing against the engineers- I don't know why people keep chiming in as if we're punching down at "lowly engineers" when the reality is that it's a management failure of the highest order.

They're a billion-dollar company owned by a trillion-dollar one... it's very hard to "punch down" at this system: nobody is going after the engineer, we're punching the fact that the system that is a defacto monopoly due to network effects is putting new features or pleasing their owners over the core offering.. How is that an engineering failure? That's an active choice by management.

Show HN: Red Squares – GitHub outages as contributions