CEO learns why this was a bad idea.
---
It sucks that there were a bunch of people downstream who were negatively affected by this, but this was an entirely foreseeable problem on his company's part.
Even when we consider those real problems with Railway. Software engineers have to evaluate our tools as part of our job. Those complaints about Railway, while legitimate, are still part of the typical sort of questions that every engineering team has to ask of the services they rely on:
What does API key grant us access to?
What if someone runs a delete command against our data?
How do we prepare against losing our prod database?
Etc.
And answering those questions with, "We'll just follow what their docs say, lol," is almost never good enough of an answer on its own. Which is something that most good engineers know already.
This HN submission reads like a classic case of FAFO by cheapening out with the "latest and greatest" models.
to an extent, its a good job for an agent reviewer for figuring out how screwed your setup is, other than the risk of it mucking things up as part of the review
You mean add that to my prompt right ?
These prompts sound like abusive relationships.
- Claude Opus 4.6, when asked to run a root cause analysis on itself
Doesn't seem so to me.
Anything else is just gambling.