Hacker News Reader

Comment by ggm | Hacker News Reader

You're going to look like an attacker to google for almost any model of review of access. You're in a niche role which would demand they build systems to take account of you. I can understand why a monolith has back pressure towards that cost and consequence.

Sucks.

View on HN

They probably shouldn't have suggested doing this in their own documentation then.

Totally agree. But the docs aren't going to guide their model. Contradiction between the reality of a service, monitoring, and docs don't go to "align with the docs" they go to "align docs to reality"

I don't like this. I too have looked like an attack on their models using things inside the customer-side of google, took special relationships to get over this, an ongoing threat to how we relate to them.

(it's not in GCP btw. different arc of the megaplex)

Docs will guide what the courts think though if this gets that far. You can be sure lawyers will bring any documentation that seems to show your case before the judge and demand why they said it worked if it didn't.

I'm not in favor of going to court, but if it does a lawyer doesn't have be very good to think of the above.

So then it seems like different departments are undermining each other’s credibility on a daily basis?

That’s been my experience with Google.

They’re too big and no one has the authority to clean it up. I’m honestly shocked we don’t see more account suspensions.

I’ve migrated my businesses to Microsoft’s cloud offerings and they’re also a clusterfuck, but at least I can get real support people on the phone pretty easily (for now…).

There was that Australian pension fund who had all their data suddenly deleted (not suspended) by Google.

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/google-cloud-ac...

Just like it supposed to be in a corporation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com