This operation should not have been retried even once. The overall operation failed due to an unsatisfied precondition that a second attempt could not have rectified (the non-existent target resource). The status of the job should have transitioned to permanent failure, awaiting manual intervention.

Yup exponential backoff. But this is all just bandaid: like saying there should at least be some tests.

It doesn't change the underlying problem though: slop is slop and that turd the CFO produced would still be a turd.

"Here's a piece of shit that doesn't work, but at least it's cheap" is no way to operate.

I have the same feeling. Interesting topic but the text feels generated, perhaps because of the constant reiteration of the point

I find the contextless, reflexive labeling of every article on HN as “AI slop” far sloppier and lazier than the articles being criticized. I am no fan of these trends, nor the companies driving them, but this sort of lazy critique has become counterproductive, IMO.

So so much AI slop in these posts that usually would be very interesting. I don't like Claude's voice in most situations. The LLMisms stand out like nails on a chalkboard.

Keep repeating what happened over and over in different ways and different analogies adding nothing each time.

Senior Cloud Engineered Pipeline(d) Slop

Frankly i'm fine somebody having an experience, and pulling it through an AI into digestible text to be shared.

But for the love of god just put an AI Use Disclaimer at the top.

[dead]