To be honest, I don't give a shit about his friend/business partner.

But I do like his idea. So I appreciate that he omits pointless personal details and just sticks to the meat of the article.

When a writer expects me to read a bunch of self-indulgent cliche boilerplate I usually hit the back button.

Not poor backups, poor restores. You're missing the point of the article!

It's also poor backup. They thought the backup was being done by their hosting company while in reality it was failing silently.

A good backup is one that can be restored.

A poor backup becomes a poor restore, while a good backup isn't necessarily a good restore. It's like quibbling over whether I said, "his car was completely totaled in the race" rather than, "he didn't win the race." No one thinks that not crashing your car implies that you've won a race, but you can't win a race with a crashed car.