Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bye, Amazon

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Bye, Amazon

#181

Post by peterwwillis »

dennis_jeeves wrote: post #129
simonhfrost wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion it was more from the perspective that minorities may have a more empathetic view on problems, after likely experiencing dealing with problems other more privileged people don't have to. In this case: one of the biggest benefits of hiring minorities... ending up being the reason you fire them.

Counterpoint: Since many companies are under (public?) pressure to fill in some minority quota, they with end with relatively incompetent people from the minority group. Also my personal observation: an incompetent person from a minority group is likely to see a failed transaction through their own colored 'minority' lens. Eg. a woman who has been turned down for a job will attribute it to her being a woman and no ot…

Well first of all, literally everyone in the world sees everything through their own colored lens. It's called personal bias, and we all have it. It's part of why minorities get turned down for jobs for reasons other than their technical experience. Or why they get turned down in spite of their technical experience.

Second, it's my personal observation that 'many companies' don't end up with 'incompetent minorities', because, anecdotally, I and everyone I know who has worked with 'minorities' at multiple jobs has found them as competent or more so than their 'majority' peers. But a 'colored lens' is what takes your personal experience and turns it into whatever you want to see, not necessarily what is actually there. So who knows if either of us is right if all we're doing is looking with our personal biases?

Re: Bye, Amazon

#182

Post by lmilcin »

I don't think many people take it into account, but many companies look up to tech giants and replicate their actions.

When company the size of Amazon can get away with this kind of heavy handed employee treatment, the results are affecting many, many more people that it might seem on the surface.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#183

Post by Waterluvian »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers Assuming this is the real true reason (I would trust Tim, but you never know, so just being explicit here), it takes huge balls to do something like this. The economic loss has to be somewhat taken in relation to your total wealth (e.g. if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank, it's not as hard as if you had zero in the bank), but still... V…

> Very few people would have the courage to walk away from big sums of money purely on principle.

I think assuming this is revealing of one's own attitude more than anything.

I also feel like big companies have people convinced that they're being paid a lot because they're exceptional or special in some way. Really, they're being compensated for either stress or location or working more than 40 hours or giving away their morals.

I say this because I know a few people who made this kind of decision. And speaking with them about it, it wasn't difficult. They just had a more complete compensation model to evaluate against.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#185

Post by acdha »

bantunes wrote: post #53
wtmt wrote: post #37

I appreciate the candid statement he has made about one of the things that ails Amazon's leadership. > Only that’s not just Amazon, it’s how 21st-century capitalism is done. I wonder if there's any future opportunity for him in the existing set of well known names or large enough companies. I can't think of any widely known tech company that doesn't do "21st-century capitalism" (treating people as disposable cogs). S…

I hear he's 64, so this might not be a big deal for him going forward.

I'm with OP on the non-profit route: if you're a relatively healthy retiree who's concerned about the future your children are going to live in (a recurring theme of his blog posts) there are a lot of activist organizations which can use serious talent which they can't pay market rates for and he'd have the luxury of picking the one whose views most closely align.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#186

Post by st1ck »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers Assuming this is the real true reason (I would trust Tim, but you never know, so just being explicit here), it takes huge balls to do something like this. The economic loss has to be somewhat taken in relation to your total wealth (e.g. if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank, it's not as hard as if you had zero in the bank), but still... V…

> if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank

Losing money is hard, but if you reframe it as being rewarded $1M (with pretty low marginal utility after $10M) by losing your freedom, then such a choice is only rational.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#187

Post by kharak »

2ion wrote: post #76
red_admiral wrote: post #50

This is what being a capital-A Ally looks like. I take my hat off to you, sir.

He's just somebody with FY money in the bank so he can do whatever he wants in a larger scope than others. I'll keep my hat on; this is nothing special in his position.

Excuse me? How many people with FY money do what he did? What he did IS the exception and henceforth noteworthy.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#188

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M »

nicoburns wrote: post #153
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers Assuming this is the real true reason (I would trust Tim, but you never know, so just being explicit here), it takes huge balls to do something like this. The economic loss has to be somewhat taken in relation to your total wealth (e.g. if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank, it's not as hard as if you had zero in the bank), but still... V…

> Very few people would have the courage to walk away from big sums of money purely on principle. On the contrary, bucketloads of people do this all the time. The world would be a better place if more people did.

Citation needed. From what I've seen, there tends to be other reasons, and the ethical issues are at best the straw that broke the camel's back, and at worst cover for quitting ahead of getting fired.

(For avoidance of doubt, I'm not saying either is the case here.)

Re: Bye, Amazon

#189

Post by bob33212 »

nicoburns wrote: post #153
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #2

> I quit in dismay at Amazon firing whistleblowers Assuming this is the real true reason (I would trust Tim, but you never know, so just being explicit here), it takes huge balls to do something like this. The economic loss has to be somewhat taken in relation to your total wealth (e.g. if you lose $1M by quitting but you already have $10M+ in the bank, it's not as hard as if you had zero in the bank), but still... V…

> Very few people would have the courage to walk away from big sums of money purely on principle. On the contrary, bucketloads of people do this all the time. The world would be a better place if more people did.

Warren Buffet's has a famous quote about time being the only valuable thing he has. Once you have enough money to cover food/housing/healthcare/transportation it seems stupid to spend a lot of your time helping an organization that you don't like, even if they are paying you well.

What is impressive here is that he make his decision public. Plenty of people have moral issues with their company and just say that they "Retire" or "Want to spend more time with the family" rather being honest about why they are leaving.

Re: Bye, Amazon

#190

Post by YayamiOmate »

krig wrote: post #105
reitzensteinm wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can trust that it's the real reason, because either way it's going to make him radioactive for the next gig like this. No large company keeps its hands completely clean. Defense contracts, Chinese censorship, exploiting addiction, anticompetitive behaviour, sexism, the list goes on. Having a public figure at your company that's willing to martyr themselves to push the knife in just a little deeper when yo…

What an utter disaster this society is if having a conscience makes you "radioactive" to employers. I can only aspire to be as radioactive as possible, then.

Well, this is interesting because, subset of people deciding one is "radioactive" is very small compared to whole society, but in general the society is selforganized. There is no oppression. People have money and power because other people give it to them.

I guess people collecitvely want to have black characters in power to do the dirty, making their live easier overall. I don't see other reason "western" societies don't change people in power when they actually can.

Post reply on HN