Hacker News Reader

Comment by randmeerkat | Hacker News Reader

> were instrumental in aiding the rapid restoration.

I don’t call 13 days a rapid restoration. I also don’t trust Google’s post-mortem documentation more than an independent news organization to be honest about what really happened. Especially while Google is actively gaslighting their users about the errors in its AI search [1].

1. https://www.theverge.com/2024/5/24/24164119/google-ai-overvi...

View on HN

It is, we'll go with, weird, to presume a random news article making baseless claims is correct over the, like, actual people who addressed the problem.

I'll reiterate, no one involved in the restoration (Unisuper or Google) ever said anything about Google's backups being deleted, in fact basically everything Google and Unisuper have said specific that it was only the VM config that was removed. Ars made up the thing about backups being deleted, which makes an exciting headline, but it doesn't appear at all reliable or based in reporting, just conjecture.

> Ars made up the thing about backups being deleted, which makes an exciting headline, but it doesn't appear at all reliable or based in reporting, just conjecture.

So you just label a reputable news outlet as fake news and then move on..?

I'm saying Ars is jumping to conclusions a bit too quickly. You can call that fake news if you want, I didn't.

“This is an isolated, ‘one-of-a-kind occurrence’ that has never before occurred with any of Google Cloud’s clients globally. This should not have happened. Google Cloud has identified the events that led to this disruption and taken measures to ensure this does not happen again.”

“UniSuper had backups in place with an additional service provider. These backups have minimised data loss, and significantly improved the ability of UniSuper and Google Cloud to complete the restoration.”

https://www.unisuper.com.au/about-us/media-centre/2024/a-joi...

Those quotes were pulled directly from UniSuper’s website. Google deleted an account, lost the data, and then took 13 days to recover the pension fund from data stored on another data provider. Maybe you should consider that your employment at Google is damaging your objectivity.

Can you please quote in particular where unisuper mentions that the backups at Google were deleted?

Like I keep saying, nothing in the primary sources supports the claims either that backups or that the accounts were deleted. You've jumped to a particular conclusion, and seem unwilling adjust that conclusion in light of new evidence.

It was quoted above, you seem unwilling to accept the facts.

You quoted two paragraphs, none of which mentioned either Google missing backups, or unisupers account being deleted. I'm fact, what you quoted aligns perfectly with what I've been suggesting the whole time.

You're making a strong claim, I'm asking you to source it specifically. Instead you're taking a statement from which you can draw multiple conclusions, and picking one (that has been contradicted repeatedly) and telling me I'm unwilling to accept the facts. But they aren't facts, they're your interpretation of vague statements.

I'm happy to accept facts. Facts like "Data backups that were stored in Google Cloud Storage in the same region were not impacted by the deletion" are very easy to understand and difficult to misinterpret. Do you disagree?

Like, even the additional reporting the ars article links to (https://danielcompton.net/google-cloud-unisuper, https://x.com/milesward/status/1792909048830214607?t=Vu__q1h...) basically contradicts both their and your conclusions. You're weirdly hung up on this.

Again, the same quote I already quoted above, direct from UniSuper’s website. They needed to use their backups at a different cloud provider, as GCP’s data wasn’t recoverable. I don’t know why you’re arguing so strongly against this.

That they used external backups doesn't actually imply anything about the GCS backups being unavailable. And Google's press release explicitly notes that unisuper used both. (And there's all kinds of reasons to have used both, both good and bad)

Put formally, we have statements that

    - 1. A and B exist
    - 2. A was used
    - 3. A and B were used

Your conclusion from these statements is that, because (2) A was used, therefore B does not exist. Hopefully putting it like this makes it clear why I'm so confused.

I’ll concede my point, well argued.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com