161–170 of 498 posts
Try multiplying by 10 if you want to get serious Andy …
In ~2020 there were about ~67k software engineers at Amazon (aka had access to the source-control posix group), so unless you don't want Amazon to exist anymore I don't think that's plausible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s preliminary data that shows a recession is currently underway. This is reactionary. if the fed cuts rates and stop’s quantity tightening then sure, Amazon will likely u-turn. But that’s due to a situational change.
I think a great deal of this situation is narrative based. People are generally terrible at predicting earnings six months out as well as recessions and if we get a major recession it would easily be the most widely anticipated recession in history. First it starts with higher than expected CPI followed by hawkish fed policy. People learned their lesson last cycle and became worried that rate hikes as in past cycles…
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/29/federal-reserve-rec...
Here’s a thought that has been percolating in my mind for a bit since these “market adjustments” began a month or two back. Somehow at some point, in what perhaps could be blamed on the ever-hated mass produced MBAs - companies got really comfortable with the “it’s not personal, it’s just good business” of letting go of their employees for a slightest reason, or sometimes for no reason at all - just to make it look t…
I'm not sure if this is the way a company thinks, even if they wouldn't have pressure from investors or worries for future survival (they would, BTW). Instead, some companies, likely Amazon too, view such cut as necessity for two reasons: bloated organizations slow everyone down, while diluting the company's culture; it's a great chance to trim the low performers. Not saying this is good or bad, just trying to explain the underlying logic.
> people started treating companies they way companies treating people and we are starting to see the results
Reid Hoffman wrote a book, The Alliance, which advocates that employees and companies are not family, but for an alliance. When they both have the right goal, they work towards the goal. When they don't, they part ways. Similarly, Netflix's Reed Hastings advocated that companies are like professional sports teams. A professional sports team is brutal when it comes to trading its players, but it does not mean the players will not pull their weights. I personally think the two views are more realistic and help employees advance their careers.
Are there enough companies that can afford all the tens of thousands of fired workers SV salaries if all these big companies are firing them?
If they are not really into tech (and just making money, which is fine by its own right), then they’ll land somewhere else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I long ago concluded that the way to make pots o' money is to: 1. go out for a walk. Offer the first good looking man a CEO-ship of your new company. 2. pay him $$$$$ 3. hire loads of people 4. fire them all 5. goto 3
In this scheme, where do the pots 'o money come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In ~2020 there were about ~67k software engineers at Amazon (aka had access to the source-control posix group), so unless you don't want Amazon to exist anymore I don't think that's plausible.
Amazon has over 300,000 corporate employees. It's not just software engineers getting laid off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make it to L5/6 without being a good engineer. I interviewed several Uber/Amazon engineers and they couldn't solve a simple problem (very easy problem that most bootcamp grads could do). A lot of them get there by being interviewed by other bad engineers, and just float when the market is strong, or use politics to get in a good position. A guy at my company just merges library upgrade PRs blindly. That's all…
> I interviewed several Uber/Amazon engineers and they couldn't solve a simple problem (very easy problem that most bootcamp grads could do). I don't know you personally, and I don't want to start a flame war here, but if there's one thing FAANG senior engineers are good at, it's solving simple coding problems in interviews If you're saying they can't actually proactively get useful work done on their own, or quickly…
You generally only get good at interview problems when you're entering the door. After that, interview questions generally have nothing to do with your job.
Also, as you move beyond entry level positions, political skills, communications skills and connections becomes more and more important. Unless you happen to be at some massive growth teams at the right times, it's basically impossible to move beyond ICT4 or L5 unless both you and your boss have very good grasp of politics.
Here’s a thought that has been percolating in my mind for a bit since these “market adjustments” began a month or two back. Somehow at some point, in what perhaps could be blamed on the ever-hated mass produced MBAs - companies got really comfortable with the “it’s not personal, it’s just good business” of letting go of their employees for a slightest reason, or sometimes for no reason at all - just to make it look t…
I have no opinion on the MBA bit, but I think you're spot on about people starting to treat companies the way the companies are treating them. ~10 years ago, when I got my first job, I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource", how important is the company "culture" and all of that corporate kumbaya. And, at that point, the vast m…
Here’s a thought that has been percolating in my mind for a bit since these “market adjustments” began a month or two back. Somehow at some point, in what perhaps could be blamed on the ever-hated mass produced MBAs - companies got really comfortable with the “it’s not personal, it’s just good business” of letting go of their employees for a slightest reason, or sometimes for no reason at all - just to make it look t…
This was covered in ArsTechnica [1] and it seems like they are laying off a large portion of the Alexa team because it doesn't make a profit. I bought the Alexa when it first came out and it had and still has a great UI. When the Alexa launched I made a skill on the platform which I don't think anyone really downloaded. What confused me the most was Amazon never allowed for paid skills (which I really think was an ex…
1. Sell millions of devices at cost. Unrelenting sales on Echo devices
2. ???
3. Profit
And Step 2 was never filled in. Maybe it was "if people can re-order paper towels by shouting at Alexa, we'll sell more paper towels". But that plan has its limits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no opinion on the MBA bit, but I think you're spot on about people starting to treat companies the way the companies are treating them. ~10 years ago, when I got my first job, I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource", how important is the company "culture" and all of that corporate kumbaya. And, at that point, the vast m…
>I was in the minority, pretty much the only person cynical about big companies' claims how "people are our most important resource" You tread in strange circles. I'd think a cursory look at history ought to be enough to put the lie to such claims.
Honestly I also feel there's another factor of a lot of depression as people look around and see that cynical view was the truth all along.