pqdbr

Or Rails...

Sorry, i should have been clearer: bare metal here meaning any other provider like, for instance, Hetzner. We use a local provider. 10x savings when compared to AWS.

The problem is that they don’t support bare metal. I’d love to use PlanetScale in our bare metal servers.

Related: the UX is currently terrible. Every time I go to a website that has passkey flow, I'm presented with: - MacOS native UI; which I cancel; then I see - Bitwarden UI; which I cancel; then I see - Chrome UI; which I cancel;

Like, seriously?

Thats 3 months in AI years.

Carmine is cooking. His work on RubyLLM has been incredible, even going as far as upstreaming important work about fiber usage into Rails Solid Queue so that we reap the Async benefits, which are essential in this LLM age.

Totally agree. And having a Rails monolith that the LLM can see the entire context - even our marketing landing pages - is a blessing in AI era.

Fair hit

It's literally all there is to it. Write your prompt normally. then, at the last paragraph, you write:

Use a workflow to implement this. You (Fable) are the orchestrator, planner and reviewer. Opus agents are implementers.

That's all there's to it. it will create the dynamic workflow - has a nice interface native to Claude Code - and do all the coordination to deliver what you asked.

My friend, our users would flood our support within 30 seconds of the first blip of this happening.

I'm curious: what's _your_ defense against this?

This is how we implemented this at our company:

- We have 2 sources of data that we must backup to continue existing as a business; our postgres and binary files in S3. Everything else is derivable (elasticsearch, so on).

- For postgres, we use barman. With the help of opus/fable, you can get a streaming replication backup working in no time. We have one into another server in the same datacenter (we use baremetal) and another one in another server in a different datacenter.

- We then have a last resort barman backup with bi-weekly base backups + WAL streaming to S3 (both the base backup and WALs). It sends these backups + wal segments into an specific S3 bucket that has object lock in compliance mode. This is a feature from AWS S3 that even the most privileged account credentials (super admin) can't turn off nor delete the files before the object lock, which is 10 days in our case. Object lock compliance mode can only be extended, never shortened.

- For S3, we store them into another versioned bucket, with lifecycle rules to also expire non current versions (== deleted objects) after 10 days. No point in object lock compliance here because it would only protect objects for the most recent 10 days, and you gain nothing. What we do instead: the app servers only have access to these bucket tru an IAM credential that can't delete old versions (so deleted objects have to expire manually via the lifecycle rule) AND this IAM credentials also can't change the object policy.

IMHO, this protects us enough so that even in the worst case scenario (ransomware) we have 10 days to sort everything out and recover our AWS access.

And yes, we test the S3 barman restoration and it works fine. Data loss is at max 5 minutes due to the archive_timeout=300s on the primary.

For the streaming replications in the two servers I mentioned, it's less <1ms, but those wouldn't protect us much in the case of the ransomware - even tough we use tailscale and one compromised server can't ssh into the other.

I’m using Claude code dynamic workflow like this. I tell Fable to use a workflow. He is the planner, orchestrator and reviewer. Opus agents are implementers. Works unbelievably well.

Is the commentator not even opening the article before commenting?