Fargate vs EC2 Post Socials (#13413)

* Remove unnecessary link and streamline content about Azure Table Storage vs. Cosmos DB in blog post.

* Update blog title and social media descriptions for clarity on AWS Fargate vs EC2 comparison.

* Remove draft status from Fargate vs EC2 blog post.

content/blog/fargate-vs-ec2/index.md

@@ -1,8 +1,6 @@
 ---
-# title: "AWS Fargate vs EC2 for Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS)"
 title: "Fargate vs EC2"
 date: 2024-11-18T08:42:34-05:00
-# you want to be able to merge the post without publishing it.
 draft: false
 meta_desc: Explore the differences between AWS EKS Fargate and EC2-backed clusters for your Kubernetes EKS workloads.
 meta_image: meta.png
@@ -14,8 +12,8 @@ tags:
     - ec2
     - k8s
 social:
-    twitter:
-    linkedin:
+    twitter: Discover the key differences between AWS EKS Fargate and EC2-backed clusters! Fargate offers easy scaling and resource isolation, while EC2 provides cost efficiency and faster pod startup. Learn how to choose the right approach for your Kubernetes workloads.
+    linkedin: Discover the key differences between AWS EKS Fargate and EC2-backed clusters! Fargate offers easy scaling and resource isolation, while EC2 provides cost efficiency and faster pod startup. Learn how to choose the right approach for your Kubernetes workloads.
 
 ---
 Building an EKS cluster requires choosing how your containers will actually run - either on EC2 instances you manage or through AWS Fargate's pod-by-pod approach. The differences can be pretty dramatic in practice. I'm setting up a demo cluster right now using Pulumi, so let me show you what I mean:

content/blog/when-to-use-azure-cosmos-db/index.md

@@ -271,8 +271,6 @@ Again, using some back-of-the-napkin math, DynamoDB in provisioned Mode is more
 See also [Cosmos DB vs DynamoDB, Know The Differences](/what-is/database-comparison-cosmos-db-vs-dynamodb/)
 {{% /notes %}}
 
-https://cosmos.azure.com/capacitycalculator/
-
 ## Tangent: Azure Table Storage vs. Cosmos DB
 
 Cosmos DB also has a Azure Table API and marketing material saying it's a better choice than Azure Table Storage. My take is Azure Table and Cosmos DB's Table API both provide key-value storage with distinct trade-offs. Azure Table Storage is cost-effective and ideal for simpler, predictable workloads, requiring minimal complexity. Cosmos DB's Table API adds flexibility, optional global distribution, and tunable consistency, but also brings more complexity and cost.