Same here, and it's 100% consistent, not 'increased error rates' but actually ju...

synicalx · on March 1, 2017

Heh that "increased error rates" got a chuckle out of me, I guess 100% is technically an increase.

pm90 · on Feb 28, 2017

Well what if you'd hosted it on your hard drive and it crashed? It seems like the probability of either is similar nowadays.

jacobwg · on Feb 28, 2017

The difference there is you can potentially do something about it, vs having to wait on an upstream provider to fix an issue for everybody.

btgeekboy · on March 1, 2017

"you can potentially do something about it" vs. "you have to do something about it"

Perspective is everything.

JupiterMoon · on Feb 28, 2017

Grab different machine, git clone your repo, good to go.

What's the odds of the server with your repo and your own hard drive crashing at the same time?

_ao789 · on Feb 28, 2017

Strangely, your comment made me read this entire post about working out probabilities.. http://www.statisticshowto.com/how-to-find-the-probability-o...

Quite interesting really!

JupiterMoon · on March 2, 2017

If we assume that the events are largely uncorrelated+ then we are multiplying the probabilities and our chance of wipe out are far lower.

+I would suggest that for situations where the probability of my machine and github's/bitbucket's servers being down due to the same event would be events of such magnitude that I would not be worried about my project anymore being more focused on basic survival...