Rails is convenient and intuitive, I don't think anyone reasonable is arguing that.
My point is that if the stack regularly falls over then the programmer convenience has to be sacrificed in favor of stable and mega-fast alternative that requires more programmer energy.
I love working with dynamic languages. I can prototype almost anything that I want to do, in hours. But I also recognized the need for a hardcore stack for a previous contract and went the long and painful route with Rust.
Result: the project is running for 7 months now, has only been restarted 4 times for updating it (re-deployment), never crashed once, handles 5000+ network connections and streams data from them 24/7.
Peak CPU usage on a 4-core VPS: 27%.
Peak memory usage: 180MB. Normal average memory usage: 80MB.
Why do you assume the outages are language related and not due to the complex product having bugs? How does Rust prevent bad schema changes or missing data in the DB?
You know you can just click on the post title, that will open the posted link in which you can read the detailed cause of all the outages they had that month.
If you do this, you will realize that none are close to what you describe.
Also have you considered that if you had weekly outage when billion dollars companies continued to stick with Rails, maybe you were the problem?
Meaning that at one point extra programmer difficulty is worth it if your everyday web stack can't keep up.