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

An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 281 posts

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#71

Post by troydavis »

AnHonestComment wrote: post #21
samirillian wrote: post #4

This is what I don't understand. When Tbray left, he said he was doing so in solidarity with the distribution center types, but he held to the line that AWS was great. This despite nightmare stories like this one regularly bubbling up, and I've heard similar from friends. What is it about tech culture that people within it refuse to admit the level of abuse-by-design that happens at these companies? Is it that they w…

It’s worth pointing out why it needs to be “revived”: because the first iteration of the tax would have destroyed grocery stores and was protested by construction unions due to its disastrous policy. This iteration is targeting the 800 largest employers in Seattle, many of whom aren’t currently profitable. “Tax Amazon” is classic dishonesty — neither bill has been focused on Amazon, both would be a disaster for Seatt…

Another source for anyone not in Seattle who wants to learn more about it: https://sccinsight.com/2017/10/30/close-look-proposed-head-t...

That's from 2017 when it was introduced but it's a good non-partisan explanation, including the many problems with the proposal. https://sccinsight.com/tag/head-tax/ has newer posts.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#72

Post by dlp211 »

fourmyle wrote: post #67
dlp211 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to keep people from noticing how damaging their out of control spending is. That's a bold assertion without any citation.

The numbers were listed in the next sentence.

They edited their post. Also, numbers don't mean anything without context. Why is that out of control spending?

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#73

Post by dudul »

throwaway24857 wrote: post #30

> After being on the team for a couple of months, I was put on the on-call rotation I don't work at Amazon but the situation is very similar to my job. On-call can be brutal, even if there are no incidents during your week (which is rare.) Just the fact that you have to be 24/7 _ready_ during a whole week sucks, especially when you have a family. During my on-call week, I can't go get groceries, I can't take my kid t…

The 1st time I worked at a company with "on call" we had this concern while trying to define the policy/rotation/etc. It was always "well, yeah I can be on call sure, but this specific Tuesday at 7pm I have this thing". We solved it in 5 minutes: just have a primary and a secondary that gets the page after 10 minutes. Solved. Go get your groceries, if it's bad luck and the page happens during the 45 minutes where you're out, your buddy will get it.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#75

Post by starpilot »

lowiqengineer wrote: post #65

A 5 year old gist from 1 employee (out of the current ~70k SWE's employed at the company + all that have come and gone in the last 5 years) just to shit on the quality of Amazon engineering? And folks wonder why I have depression -it's not because i'm burnt out, it's because the HN crowd thinks I'm some sort of cognitive defective for working at Amazon.

This post convinced me to apply to Amazon. At the end, he says working there overall is pretty good. The pay, the impact. "Burned out" here doesn't mean he quit, he just scaled back his workload.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#76

Post by vkou »

mlindner wrote: post #50
AnHonestComment wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth pointing out why it needs to be “revived”: because the first iteration of the tax would have destroyed grocery stores and was protested by construction unions due to its disastrous policy. This iteration is targeting the 800 largest employers in Seattle, many of whom aren’t currently profitable. “Tax Amazon” is classic dishonesty — neither bill has been focused on Amazon, both would be a disaster for Seatt…

As someone not from Seattle, the drama around that tax was quite ridiculous. The idea of a "head tax" is utterly nonsensical in that it's an incentive to NOT hire people, which is the entire point that companies are pulled into cities. Jobs. Jobs are one of the things cities care most about more than anything. A head tax actively disincentives hiring of new workers. A head tax can maybe make sense if you have permane…

Given how many people are moving to Seattle every year, far faster than new housing can be built, I'd say that an effectively negative unemployment rate has, in fact, been one of Seattle's problems, and that slowing hiring down would, in fact, help things.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#77

Post by MattGaiser »

mlindner wrote: post #50
AnHonestComment wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth pointing out why it needs to be “revived”: because the first iteration of the tax would have destroyed grocery stores and was protested by construction unions due to its disastrous policy. This iteration is targeting the 800 largest employers in Seattle, many of whom aren’t currently profitable. “Tax Amazon” is classic dishonesty — neither bill has been focused on Amazon, both would be a disaster for Seatt…

As someone not from Seattle, the drama around that tax was quite ridiculous. The idea of a "head tax" is utterly nonsensical in that it's an incentive to NOT hire people, which is the entire point that companies are pulled into cities. Jobs. Jobs are one of the things cities care most about more than anything. A head tax actively disincentives hiring of new workers. A head tax can maybe make sense if you have permane…

> The idea of a "head tax" is utterly nonsensical in that it's an incentive to NOT hire people

If your goal is to reduce rents by reducing the number of people living nearby, then it can meet the goal.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#78

Post by filoleg »

Barrin92 wrote: post #18

The on call stuff sounds outright dystopian to me, it's not even legal in my country. More places should think about adopting something akin to France's El Khomri law's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect ) and ensure that every citizen has enough time to recuperate from work and isn't pestered by their employer 24/7.

How are you proposing to run a complex system that essentially powers a big chunk of the entire internet and can go down any second without on-call?

If a big selling point of your system is the ability to be on 24/7, on-call is inevitable. But it definitely can be way less gruesome than it currently is at Amazon for a lot of teams right now. For example, my on-call schedule is extremely relaxed and low-stress, it is never a worry I actually have or something I dread ahead of time. But getting rid of it completely is simply impossible for a lot of "always online" services.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#79

Post by dudul »

bambataa wrote: post #61
teej wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These employees do not have employment contracts and do not have hours that are set by a contract.

Wait, you're saying Amazon SDEs don't have a contract?

It's most likely a standard "at will" employment yes.

Re: An Amazon programmer’s perspective (2015)

#80

Post by Barrin92 »

jakebellacera wrote: post #69
Barrin92 wrote: post #18

The on call stuff sounds outright dystopian to me, it's not even legal in my country. More places should think about adopting something akin to France's El Khomri law's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_disconnect ) and ensure that every citizen has enough time to recuperate from work and isn't pestered by their employer 24/7.

What was stated seems pretty typical on small teams who manage critical systems. How are critical systems managed otherwise without having to 3x your team (assuming you want 24hr coverage with a 8hr workday)?

>How are critical systems managed otherwise without having to 3x your team (assuming you want 24hr coverage with a 8hr workday)?

They typically aren't, you need to hire more people then. In anything defined as critical I would suggest that being well rested is also a requirement rather than having a team of people who are so overworked they develop mental illness.

Post reply on HN