71–80 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit ironic when that entire stack was invented at AWS.
VMs were invented at AWS? Blob storage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly haven't worked much with code over many years. When laptops change, not all existing projects get checked out. In fact, in VSCode, one can use a project without cloning and checking it out at all.
Honestly I'm just really wondering what the odds are. In particular for code that made it onto git.
My fear of this sort of thing happening is why I don't use github or gitlab.com for primary hosting of my source code; only mirrors. I do primary source control in house, and keep backups on top of that. It's also why nothing in my AWS account is "canonical storage". If I need, say, a database in AWS, it is live-mirrored to somewhere within my control, on hardware I own, even if that thing never sees any production t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I once said to the CTO of the company I worked for "do we back up our source code"? He said, "no, it's on github". I said no more.
If the repo is on GitHub and two or more developers keep reasonably up-to-date checkouts on their local computers, the “3-2-1” principle of backups is satisfied. Additionally to that, if any of those developers have a backup strategy for their local computer, those also count as a backup of that source code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest your CTO needs some gentle reminders about risk management and how the cloud really works. If your boss is that daft, its probably a sign to bail out. Remember to do your own personal due diligence. Due dill is not something that you just do for someone else: do your own! Do your own personal risk assessment. If code was lost, who would be found accountable? You or them? EDIT: PS - I am a CTO ...
But it's github ...... it can't be lost. Unless github closes the account, or a hacker gets access, or a rogue employee gets mad and deletes all, or some development accident results in repo deletion, or etc etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> accidentally wiped everything immediately There is no “wipe everything immediately” button.
Did you read the article? > According to them, AWS MENA was running some kind of proof of concept on “dormant” and “low-activity” accounts. Multiple accounts were affected, not just mine. If AWS has a 90-day closure policy, why was this account deleted so quickly?
The amount of self-aggrandizing and lack of self awareness tells me this author is doing to do all of this again. This post could be summed up with "I should have had backups. Lesson learned", but instead they deflect to whining about how their local desktop is a mess and they NEED to store everything remotely to stay organized. They're going to dazzle you with all of their hardened bunker this, and multiple escape r…
The author doesn't grasp what putting all your eggs into one basket means: > Before anyone says “you put all your eggs in one basket,” let me be clear: I didn’t. I put them in one provider, with what should have been bulletproof redundancy: That's one basket. A single point of failure. "But it should have been impossible to fail!" Backups are to handle the "impossible" failure (in reality nothing is 100% reliable).
If you are given only 5 days to comply with some request, that's how complicated your infra at AWS should be - so you can migrate to another provider in that time. Just use EC2 and basic primitives which are easy to migrate (ie S3, SES)
The amount of people shilling for a multi billion dollar corporation is baffling.
The amount of self-aggrandizing and lack of self awareness tells me this author is doing to do all of this again. This post could be summed up with "I should have had backups. Lesson learned", but instead they deflect to whining about how their local desktop is a mess and they NEED to store everything remotely to stay organized. They're going to dazzle you with all of their hardened bunker this, and multiple escape r…
The author doesn't grasp what putting all your eggs into one basket means: > Before anyone says “you put all your eggs in one basket,” let me be clear: I didn’t. I put them in one provider, with what should have been bulletproof redundancy: That's one basket. A single point of failure. "But it should have been impossible to fail!" Backups are to handle the "impossible" failure (in reality nothing is 100% reliable).
My point is that the basket that eggs are put in is not always clear in hindsight. I wasn’t even aware that Mastercard and visa shared fraud alerts and that they were automatically linked.
The author’s article is not about backups, it’s about accountability.
Editorial comment: It’s a bit weird to see AI-written (at least partially; you can see the usual em-dashes, it’s-not-X-it’s-Y) blog posts like this detract from an author’s true writing style, which in this case I found significantly more pleasant to read. Read his first ever post, and compare it to this one and many of the other recent posts: https://www.seuros.com/blog/noflylist-how-noflylist-got-clea... I’m not mu…
I didn't get an AI vibe from this post. Grammar checkers add em dashes, too. If anything, an AI tool would have written a shorter, less rambling post.
For context, here’s a handful of the ChatGPT cues I see.
- “wasn’t just my backup—it was my clean room for open‑source development” - “wasn’t standard AWS incompetence; this was something else entirely” - “you’re not being targeted; you’re being algorithmically categorized” - “isn’t a system failure; the architecture and promises are sound” - “This isn’t just about my account. It’s about what happens when […]” - “This wasn’t my production infrastructure […] it was my launch pad for updating other infrastructure” - “The cloud isn’t your friend. It’s a business”
I counted about THIRTY em-dashes, which any frequent generative AI user would understand to be a major tell. It’s got an average word count in each sentence of around ~11 (try to write with only 11 words in each sentence, and you’ll see why this is silly), and much of the article consists of brief, punchy sentences separated by periods or question marks, which is the classic ChatGPT prose style. For crying out loud, it even has a table with quippy one-word cell contents at the end of the article like what ChatGPT generates 9/10 times when asked for a comparison of two things.
It’s just disappointing. The author is undermining his own credibility for what would otherwise be a very real problem, and again, his real writing style when you read his actual written work is great.