Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#101

Post by Spoom » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:50 PM UTC

nebabyte wrote: post #88

smokeyj wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which leads to the next question. Why are we voting for a human at all? If members of an organization want a resolution passed anyone should be able to propose it - and if the magic threshold is met - then whala - the resolution is law. I want to be able to vote everyday. I want to be able to pick who I want to represent my vote - and change it at will. I want to be able to pick Bill Gates to represent me on technolo…

> If members of an organization want a resolution passed anyone should be able to propose it - and if the magic threshold is met - then whala - the resolution is law. ...You just described the legislative branch. Direct democracy has its own problems; even if you scale for proportions of people, the people leading their everyday lives do not have the time to inform themselves en masse of particulars about issues, and…

Direct democracy tends to lead to tyrannies of the majority. I'd much prefer a multi-party system with some form of instant-runoff voting or mixed member proportional voting.

*voila, as the French: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/voil%C3%A0

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#102

Post by mikestew » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #76

x2f10 wrote: post #66

I might be shunned for beating the dead horse, but while he talks about 'True Customer Obsession', he allows counterfeit goods erode his customer's trust in Amazon. I'd argue Amazon's 'process as proxy' in dealing with counterfeits is the careless return process. 'Oh, it's counterfeit? We're sorry! Here's your money back!' does not solve the issue. Sure, thanks for the $10 back, but now I must think twice (or thrice!…

You're 1.) implying that Amazon isn't actively trying to fix it (otherwise they would be "walking the walk") and 2.) that it's a widespread issue (all I've heard about counterfeit products are from a few HNers)

Are you implying that what OP says is not true, or just pointing out the obvious?

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#103

Post by knowaveragejoe » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

rubicon33 wrote: post #75

x2f10 wrote: post #66

I might be shunned for beating the dead horse, but while he talks about 'True Customer Obsession', he allows counterfeit goods erode his customer's trust in Amazon. I'd argue Amazon's 'process as proxy' in dealing with counterfeits is the careless return process. 'Oh, it's counterfeit? We're sorry! Here's your money back!' does not solve the issue. Sure, thanks for the $10 back, but now I must think twice (or thrice!…

Agreed. As a long time prime user, it's been the rise in counterfeit goods that has really shook my unwavering loyalty to Amazon. I used to order everything on there, without thinking twice. Now, I'm much more careful about what I buy on there, and often just avoid purchasing on Amazon entirely.

I'm mystified by this personally. I frequently purchase from Amazon, and haven't(to my knowledge) received counterfeit goods. Generally I stick to "fufilled by Amazon" or otherwise first-party sellers, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe I'm not purchasing niche enough products to run into this issue.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#104

Post by ckozlowski » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:51 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #41

You have to admire the grit and tenacity it takes to maintain that kind of ethos for 23 years straight. What Jeff is basically saying here in this letter is that the pedal is to the metal, forever: We can't have process as the foundation because it ossifies the organization! Be nimble to the rules of the game. When translated however, that means you are either empowering your organization to change and make new proce…

I think one of the reasons it's been successful is that the principles like "Customer obsession" are easy to relate to. I worked in places where the ethos or culture were a number of open-ended platitudes. They were a number of words like "commitment" or "integrity".

"Customer obsession" is something everyone can grasp however. Everyone can relate to this; many of us are customers of Amazon ourselves. "Is this helping our customer?" "Is this something the customer wants?" "Do I have the customer's interests at heart?" When those are the questions being asked, then values such as honesty and integrity come out naturally.

That, to me, is probably the most enjoyable thing about working here. There is plenty of disagreement and debate on how to fix an issue, what it would take, or what's the right way to go about it. We often don't get to address things as quickly or as decisively as we'd like. But I never feel like "no one gives a shit". Everyone believes customer obsession is the right thing to be. And they, we, are fanatical about protecting it.

Jeff's a good guy. I admire him too.

(Disclaimer: I work for AWS)

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#105

Post by bluGill » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

zentiggr wrote: post #61

polysaturate wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An actual serious answer: It's a line chart that shows story points starting at the top left in the beginning of the sprint. Which shows all points to be done, trending towards 0 points with 0 days left in the sprint, in the lower right. Linear means that the same points are done each day to allow the line to be perfectly linear between the top left and bottom right.

Sounds like exactly the sort of not-actually-a-real-metric metric that would entrance a number cruncher. Forget those moments of excellence where everything gels and you could get days or weeks ahead... Sigh.

Actually it is a good metric. However the metric is not a linear shape, but within 20% of linear. If you are not within 20% you need to do something about it. In general once you are within that further effort towards perfection is not desirable.

Remember the real goal: money. Sometimes it is money from sales, sometimes it is money saved. (even in case of a charity where there are higher goals money is a proxy for the real goal since it can be applied to the goal in some other way). If management can predict with reasonable accuracy when features will be done they can translate that into how much it will cost. Then they compare cost vs expected rewards (expected rewards is the job of marketing) and decide if they should focus on feature A, B, or both.

Note that many managers fail to understand error bars. There is no way to know exact numbers. However you can predict your likely error, and if the error is too high you can spend more money to reduce the error.

I recommend the book "how to measure anything" for more detail.

In the mean time when management wants perfect linear burn down charts, there is only one way to achieve them: overestimate your stories, finish them early and then go home. If you are paid for a 40 hour week you should average about 15 hours a week, but once in a while you will need to work a 40 hour week (60 hours every 10 years or so). Most management considers this unreasonable (for obvious reasons), but if a perfect linear slope actually is that important to them they will agree.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#106

Post by veidr » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

dangero wrote: post #40

smokeyj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment seems to be well received based on the points. I think about this often and it drives me nuts that the two party system is the best we have. It's like we're trying to optimize an operating system at every level EXCEPT THE KERNEL. Suggesting that you don't buy into the two party system is met with skepticism, as if you're a closet supporter of one party. Or worse, that by not supporting a party you're imp…

Without runoff elections its always going to veer towards a two party system. It would work if we did two votes: vote first for who you want, then second vote for the best choice from top two.

There's a brilliant, modern solution to this problem, and if the failed US democracy that I was born into can be fixed, I think this will be one of the cornerstones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

It's often called RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) because that's what it was dubbed in Maine, the only US state so far to approve a plan to implement it.

It rolls the runoff(s) into one vote, and leaves the drudgery to computers (could be done by schoolchildren manually, though, or whatever).

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#107

Post by Spoom » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:53 PM UTC

mejari wrote: post #64

cmurf wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an oligopoly in politics called Democrats and Republicans, and they've created, by law, many barriers to entry for any competing parties, let alone casting aside either party. Disruption in this vast market is difficult. Millenials and Xers will have to team up and work cooperatively. The baby boomers have gotten Democrats and Republicans to pander to them, there is no possible way those parties go away if b…

>they've created, by law, many barriers to entry for any competing parties, let alone casting aside either party. Do you have some examples of these types of laws?

It's not a law but the two parties control the Presidential Debates with a bipartisan commission that consistently excludes third parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_on_Presidential_Deb...

The history of it is very interesting; essentially it was formed after the League of Women Voters, who used to run the debates, stopped running them because the system had become too corrupt: "the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter."

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#108

Post by xeromal » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:54 PM UTC

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #63

webscalist wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, each microservice does one thing. Yes, they could have provided an orchestrating microservice. But they did a good job. Tech issues microservice should not have knowledge of other departments.

This comment is either incredibly witty and very insightful or it is completely the opposite, and I can't quite tell from just reading it.

It's the best kind of comment. Haha

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#109

Post by jerdfelt » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

knowaveragejoe wrote: post #103

rubicon33 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. As a long time prime user, it's been the rise in counterfeit goods that has really shook my unwavering loyalty to Amazon. I used to order everything on there, without thinking twice. Now, I'm much more careful about what I buy on there, and often just avoid purchasing on Amazon entirely.

I'm mystified by this personally. I frequently purchase from Amazon, and haven't(to my knowledge) received counterfeit goods. Generally I stick to "fufilled by Amazon" or otherwise first-party sellers, so that may have something to do with it. Maybe I'm not purchasing niche enough products to run into this issue.

Unfortunately, Amazon does not appear to keep different sellers products separate in the warehouse. All it takes is one seller sending counterfeit products to the warehouse for their inventory to be contaminated by counterfeits. This makes "fulfilled by Amazon" more risky in some respects.

Re: Jeff Bezos’ Annual Letter

#110

Post by fbonetti » Thu, Apr 13, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

lubesGordi wrote: post #99

fbonetti wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common metric used in the Scrum methodology. You start off the "sprint" with a set number of "story points" (say, 30 points), and end the sprint with zero points. When you graph the team's progress over the course of the sprint, it should ideally form a linear, downward slope. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_down_chart

This kind of thing makes sense if you were doing something like digging a trench, where the progress can be linear because the task A is the same as task A - 1. Why would anyone think that given a variety of tasks that each would take the same amount of time?

I agree. Being on the receiving end of Scrum feels like being an assembly line worker. I totally empathize with the business people who need some transparency into what the developers are working on week to week. Software is pretty abstract. I get that. But obsessing over burn down charts is the wrong way to go about it.