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

Amazon Pip Horror Story

linkedin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 771 posts

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#121

Post by spupe »

deltaonefour wrote: post #103
adomanico wrote: post #54

As much as I feel sorry for this person and their experience, it seems to me this wasn't the best way to handle this situation. It would have been more pragmatic to fire up leetcode, take a few interviews, and leave the job professionally. This probably would have come with a small pay bump, even with this persons limited professional experience. Maybe I'm just lucky and I've never had a bad experience like this, but…

Guys, what do you think of a ratemyprofessors.com for bosses at companies? Optional anonymous reviews and to be fair and balanced the boss can respond to each review. That way people can do what jiawei did but without the risk of professional self harm.

Glassdoor is kind of like that, and in my experience it is decently accurate too.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#122

Post by noway421 »

murderfs wrote: post #85

Stories have two sides, someone on blind posted the following, and no one's challenged it so presumably it's true: > The guy made 24 CRs in his entire career at amazon, all in just one CDK package. > 50% of his CRs are merged without approval. > So, yeah, there you go !

Not sure there's enough context here to make a judgement. 24 change requests in a year seems okay? How complex were they? 50% no-approval sounds ok if he was the sole maintainer of a particular part of the code/etc.

Maybe someone who's knowledgeable with the development of CDKs can shed some light on how reasonable those numbers are.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#123

Post by fortylove »

deltaonefour wrote: post #91
MattGaiser wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could create a developer filibuster. Create lists of terrible teams and tell people that they are good for interview practice, but little else.

All we want is change in the industry. This is enough for that I believe. Your name on the internet, your employees calling you out (anonymously). It's social proof. That effects your awareness and also your future job opportunities.

Such a system is also likely to be abused, is it not?

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#124

Post by rendall »

deltaonefour wrote: post #37
MattGaiser wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that society doesn’t really stand behind whistleblowers. We claim to, but at the end of the day want someone else to do the standing behind them while we go back to our lives. And we don’t want whistleblowers around as we fear that we will be their next target. Whistleblowers, in their effort to restore trust, become automatically untrusted by large swaths of society. Naming makes you persona non grata…

There should be a way to name these people anonymously. Maybe drop the ass holes name on blind or make a "shitbosses.com" where we name these jackasses and vote. Heck I'll stand behind my words. If you ever apply to a company called Anduril. Watch out for a childish manager named Calvin Hareng. This MF: https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Calvin-Hareng/-1964480350 Anduril is hiring and if you're coming on board watch out if h…

1) Aren't there websites that do this?

2) I remember during the #metoo era there was a Google doc spreadsheet of bad men going around where people could add names anonymously. It got to be thousands of names long, and at least a few of the men didn't deserve to be on it.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#125

Post by quadrifoliate »

khazhoux wrote: post #90
devoutsalsa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a useful metric. Starting a new project with lots of generated code will have thousands of lines of code & it won’t do anything useful.

It’s absolutely a useful metric. I have managed many developers who insist their low LOC is in no way indicative of their productivity. They’ll say others are padding their code with comments, or writing bloated inefficient code, or that they themselves were tackling very tough problems that result in small (but tricky) fixes. Yes, we’ve all encountered that killer deadlock or memory leak deep in the runtime that tak…

> But some people pretend that’s how all their work is, when in reality they take a week to fix a css misalignment, or take a week to refactor some simple python script and add one new command-line argument, and they average 50 LOC or whatever.

You already know what the problem with these people is (e.g. they can take a week to add a new command-line argument). Tying that to the LOC count is counterproductive.

Shitty managers like you who try to go against the well-known wisdom and try to use LOC as a metric are what leads to the problem of shitty developers trying to game that count and posting ridiculous metrics like "I checked in 51k LOC in January". Developers who treat their work as a craft will avoid shitty teams like that even if they otherwise do well on the LOC metric.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#126

Post by ngc248 »

sage76 wrote: post #101
slt2021 wrote: post #48

Quoted post unavailable.

As an Indian, I am starting to notice a pattern of terrible Indian managers from all the stories I hear from my friends. I really hope that these stories make up a biased sample.

There are bad managers from all regions and races. On blind they were asking if it was an Indian. It does not matter if it was Indian or not. It only matters that it is an "Amazon" manager.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#127

Post by deltaonefour »

spupe wrote: post #121
deltaonefour wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guys, what do you think of a ratemyprofessors.com for bosses at companies? Optional anonymous reviews and to be fair and balanced the boss can respond to each review. That way people can do what jiawei did but without the risk of professional self harm.

Glassdoor is kind of like that, and in my experience it is decently accurate too.

Nah but the resolution there is company wide. I'm talking about a service that reviews individuals. Plenty of bad people in otherwise great companies.

The point of the review in my idea is not just to inform potential candidates, but to push individual managers to become better. When your actions have real consequences towards your reputation then you will be mindful of your actions.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#128

Post by ActorNightly »

slt2021 wrote: post #21

How it started - https://i.imgur.com/7Cyia1U.jpeg How it is going - https://archive.fo/pdYHy#selection-525.105-525.423

His post 5 months after joining was a repost of someone criticizing Amazon. And then he ended up getting PIPed recently. His linked profile is all over the place too with work experience, he never held a job longer than 4 months.

Dunno if I would automatically side with his story from that.

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#129

Post by [deleted] »

murderfs wrote: post #85

Stories have two sides, someone on blind posted the following, and no one's challenged it so presumably it's true: > The guy made 24 CRs in his entire career at amazon, all in just one CDK package. > 50% of his CRs are merged without approval. > So, yeah, there you go !

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Pip Horror Story

#130

Post by deltaonefour »

rendall wrote: post #124
deltaonefour wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a way to name these people anonymously. Maybe drop the ass holes name on blind or make a "shitbosses.com" where we name these jackasses and vote. Heck I'll stand behind my words. If you ever apply to a company called Anduril. Watch out for a childish manager named Calvin Hareng. This MF: https://www.zoominfo.com/p/Calvin-Hareng/-1964480350 Anduril is hiring and if you're coming on board watch out if h…

1) Aren't there websites that do this? 2) I remember during the #metoo era there was a Google doc spreadsheet of bad men going around where people could add names anonymously. It got to be thousands of names long, and at least a few of the men didn't deserve to be on it.

I think blind does this. But it's mostly like a forum. I don't think there's a review website that specializes in reviewing managers at companies.

Reviewers would have to register by company email of course to make sure they're legit.

>It got to be thousands of names long, and at least a few of the men didn't deserve to be on it.

I think there needs to be a voting process to make sure it's not a smear campaign generated by a small minority. If the votes cross a certain threshold all the negative reviews are revealed.

Post reply on HN