Somehow they were "appending wrong" in some way and data was useless. In think they were trying to reduce the size by aggregating a bit, but they did in a way that rendered the data useless.

Of course the CEO wanted to train models with it anyway...

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

10 years and no one bothered to pull some information at random? I mean generally companies have a schedule of assessments to ensure records. Even if it's as simple as checksum.

[–] Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

The thing is they had data that expected to be slightly aggregated, do not a 1:1. The problem comes when you try to use the data for analysis and realize it didn't make any sense

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago

I like train models

[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 20 points 1 day ago

Everything is fine. Why would you need a backup?

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Backups are always considered to be too expensive up until the point that not having backups becomes more expensive. This applies to redundancy of all kinds except the one that means firing employees for not setting up the other kinds.

[–] unphazed@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

Even at home. I do one usb backup and one internal backup of photos, home videos and documents. I would love to make backups of other stuff, but I can replace a lot of the other crap if need be, because hard drives kinda stalled in price drops.

[–] luciferofastora@feddit.org 5 points 22 hours ago

The person in charge of allotting budget. "You want how many thousands for backup solutions? Here, take this flashdrive I picked up in the parking lot and use it for backups, that should be plenty enough. I mean, how many bytes can our data be? Two, three maybe?"

[–] carrylex@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Apparently someone in the South Korean goverment xD

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 22 hours ago

I doubt anyone said it verbatim, but it happens that they're deemed lower priority ad infinitum.