| ▲ | hu3 4 hours ago |
| The most aggravating fact here is not even AI blunder. It's how deleting a volume in Railway also deletes backups of it. This was bound to happen, AI or not. > Because Railway stores volume-level backups in the same volume — a fact buried in their own documentation that says "wiping a volume deletes all backups" — those went with it. |
|
| ▲ | crazygringo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yup, this is bizarre. A top use case for needing a backup is when you accidentally delete the original. You need to be able to delete backups too, of course, but that absolutely needs to be a separate API call. There should never be any single API call that deletes both a volume and its backups simultaneously. Backups should be a first line of defense against user error as well. And I checked the docs -- they're called backups and can be set to run at a regular interval [1]. They're not one-off "snapshots" or anything. [1] https://docs.railway.com/volumes/backups |
|
| ▲ | fabian2k 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Especially in combination with not having scoped api keys at all, if I understand the article correctly. If I read it correctly, any key to the dev/staging environment can access their prod systems. That's just insane. I'd never feel comfortable without a second backup at a different provider anyway. A backup that isn't deleteable with any role/key that is actually used on any server or in automation anywhere. |
|
| ▲ | exe34 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If your backup is inside the same thing you backed up, you don't have a backup. You have an out of date copy. |
| |
| ▲ | jumpconc 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | All my backups are inside the same universe as what is being backed up. A boundary must be drawn somewhere and this is one of many reasonable boundaries. As I understand it, the backup isn't "inside" the volume but is attached to it so that deleting the volume deletes the backups. | | |
| ▲ | protocolture 40 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >All my backups are inside the same universe as what is being backed up. Unless the commenter was backing up their entire universe, this comment is a non sequitur. | |
| ▲ | theshrike79 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can we at least agree to draw the line so that if a single call can delete the live data AND all backups, they shouldn't be called "backups", but rather snapshots? | | |
| ▲ | rcxdude 36 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I would also say that if your backup is controlled by the same third party as the primary, it's not a backup. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aldipower 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, that is insane. Or said in another way, they simply didn't had any working backup strategy! |
| |
|
| ▲ | jeremyccrane 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a huge issue. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Lionga 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The most aggravating fact is that the AI slopper that got owned by his dumbness and AI just post an AI generated post that will generate nothing but schadenfreude |
| |
| ▲ | Quarrelsome 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | its much more aggravating that it looks like they're learning nothing by pushing blame onto everything else except themselves. | | |
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly! I have very little sympathy... > This isn't a story about one bad agent or one bad API. It's about an entire industry building AI-agent integrations into production infrastructure faster than it's building the safety architecture to make those integrations safe. Are they really so clueless that they cannot recognise that there is no guardrail to give an agent other than restricted tokens? Through this entire rant (which, by the way, they didn't even bother to fucking write themselves), they point blank refuse to acknowledge that they chose to hand the reins over to something that can never have guardrails, knowing full well that it can never have guardrails, and now they're trying to blame the supplier of the can't-have-guardrails product, complaining that the product that literally cannot have guardrails did not, in actual fact, have guardrails. They get exactly the sympathy that I reserve for people who buy magic crystals and who then complain that they don't work. Of course they don't fucking work. Now they're blaming their suppliers for not performing the impossible. | | | |
| ▲ | elliotpage 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm glad that I'm not the only person who felt this!
It does feel like the post is missing some deserved self-reflection. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jeremyccrane 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | AI slopper here :) Kind words from a human. The irony is, there is tremendous truth in the post but you used big words so good for you bud. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | blurbleblurble 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| "The author's confession is above..." |
