151–160 of 191 posts
Maybe it's just that I live in Australia, a country that has very strict road safety laws and practices, which are generally supported by the community, given that our road fatality figures are now very low (in 2019 we had just under 1200 road deaths in a nation of 25.3M people - a low rate by world standards, particularly given how much we drive here). But I just don't see the cause for outrage over this - as long a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure we read the same article. The linked article said two things: > 'The system then uses "automated verbal alerts" to tell drivers if a violation has been detected.' 'Automated verbal alert' is the exact opposite of a real-live person. The article further says: > 'Amazon told Insider in February driver footage was not automatically available to Amazon and that the "live feed" was triggered only after the de…
Doesn’t the live feed being triggered after the detection of a safety or policy violation, allow them to be berated by a real-live person?
The live feed being triggered allows Amazon to have access to the footage, yes. It may be something their manager may talk to them about. But there's absolutely no evidence that this system allows someone to remote in and yell: "No yawning on the job. Get back to work, serf."
And no one has defined berate here.
Let's imagine that the system allows real-time chatting between someone at Amazon HQ and the driver, despite no evidence of this. But we'll pretend.
If driver is breaking the speed limit, not wearing their seat-belt, or participating in other unsafe behavior, they're putting both the public and Amazon at risk. It's entirely reasonable for Amazon to detect a driver speeding in a residential neighborhood, and be able to communicate with that driver in real time to ensure they're driving at safe speeds for the area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us would agree. There are currently legal barriers to doing this. For example, recording audio without consent is criminal in Washington state and the basis is well argued. There are many serious issues to such a monitoring system and shifts that would be necessary in society but some potentially amazing benefits. Imagine the end of "he said, she said". The reduction of incentives for running scams. The reduc…
>Imagine the end of.... A mere beginning to the end of flagrant double standards and the plebeian concession to live under them would be a dandy start. Since we're unwaveringly barreling toward the panopticon anyway, why not do so properly and see along the way who the true believers are, those willing to make genuine examples of themselves. The world should know Jeff's shower thoughts - they'll probably be foisted o…
Perhaps some guidance about where I fail to perceive or empathize. An analysis of where I have a lot of opportunity to learn. A personalized tutorial on overcoming my particular failings in negotiating, relating, or investing would be helpful.
There are definitely ways we could apply these things to make ourselves miserable. That is unquestionable. A social presence based on who I and those I know are rather than who we spend our time and attention to present ourselves as many do on social media today?
It reminds me of the wealth thing... I'd rather be rich than look rich. Many keep themselves from being wealthy chasing the latter. I'd rather be someone who people, particularly myself, like than appear to be someone people like. I'd rather be known than be seen.
do not stem from good aspects of human potential and nature,
whether they themselves realise it or not,
then you lack insight.
-
I've stopped ordering from Amazon.
Even if it costs a bit more,
it feels so good.
It's the right thing to do.
I refuse to work for them,
and so should you.
Shame on the weak, greedy, and fearful that do.
-
Government regulation seems to be the only way
to prevent a perverse, grotesque future
and present.
-
But standing in the way -
Cursed human delusion,
confusion,
greed
and fear.
Cursed ideology.
-
It acts in all of us.
Damned be this condition.
May we all see the light.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amazon measures all of the numbers and fires its "less productive" workers. There's a never ending supply of desperately poor people, so they have a constant stream of people to work as fast as physically possible until they burn out. This is baked into their entire philosophy - it applies to warehouse workers, drivers, and software engineers.
Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. You started the argument with the inclination that it's targeting "poor people" but then wrapped it up with the fact that it happens to software engineers too. It makes the line about poor people look like concern trolling. It sounds like what you don't like is technocracy, which I can agree is harmful at times.
Put yourself in the shoes of each layer of a bureaucratic organization like Amazon. Most will be normal rational actors that are self interested. Most will want to make more money and advance their career. For those on the very bottom of society, working a warehouse job will mean a few more dollars more than minimum wage and it will be one of the best opportunities available to them. They will not enjoy it and it will be hard work but they will do it because making 25k a year at McDonald's will not put enough food on their families tables.
Then you have those slightly better off that are lucky enough to get a chance at an amazing ~20-25 dollars an hour as a driver. It will be hard work but again, they will grit their teeth and bare it because there is the height of what they can attain in life and it will put food on the table and a few gifts under the tree at Christmas.
Then you have the managers just above that first layer. They themselves are micromanaged and are glorified baby sitters whose job it is to get a whole bunch of unhappy people to be productive. They themselves want to provide better for their families and they will seek to improve their career. They are NOT solely evaluated on how quickly they can shuffle boxes around, else they would give raises to motivate their employees. They instead have to bend over backwards to produce results while keeping costs low. They have very few options to do well and are forced to do things that will make those on the bottom unhappy. They will do things like cut hours off employees so that they are no longer full time so that they don't have to pay health insurance. They will be lax on safety because it's worth the risk to them. The ones good at squeezing the bottom rung will get promoted and so on. It is a darwinian survival of the fittest with rational actors on every rung.
Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.
If you can't see that Amazon's motives in this do not stem from good aspects of human potential and nature, whether they themselves realise it or not, then you lack insight. - I've stopped ordering from Amazon. Even if it costs a bit more, it feels so good. It's the right thing to do. I refuse to work for them, and so should you. Shame on the weak, greedy, and fearful that do. - Government regulation seems to be the…
Amazon has a detection system to figure out if you are getting tired. Sounds great to me. If you’re driving a huge rig or even a larger van, you falling asleep at the wheel means risk to your self and others on the road.
Not everything is bad and evil. This almost feels like an anti Amazon propaganda campaign to me. Why? Amazon isn’t the only one in the delivery business. Do their competitors have the technological capability to put this kind of feature in production? Probably not.
CCTVs have been around for decades. If surveillance was an issue, it would have come up many decades ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, this is a bit narrative-y. You started the argument with the inclination that it's targeting "poor people" but then wrapped it up with the fact that it happens to software engineers too. It makes the line about poor people look like concern trolling. It sounds like what you don't like is technocracy, which I can agree is harmful at times.
You think people are perpetuating a "narrative" about how it sucks to be a cog why exactly? You honestly think we are secret socialists arguing against Amazon? I love my cushy tech job where I get paid ridiculously for what doesn't feel like an actual job. I just happen to know people on those bottom rungs and how much it sucks. Put yourself in the shoes of each layer of a bureaucratic organization like Amazon. Most…
My point was that the author isn't talking about the poor, they're talking about a problem with technocracy that seeks to define you by metrics. As a SRE you should be keenly aware of the shortcomings of such approaches.
The story you've told here is not far from the journey I had as a software engineer coming from the military in the Midwest and South, and even at similar hourly rates.
If you look at my other comment, we likely have the same views, but I'm not focused on how it's projected on different classes. I'm focused on the practice itself.
> Should we tell those on the bottom tough shit, you should be thankful you're not working at McDonald's? Or do we all say you know what that incentive structure seems bad, that Amazon company has billions of dollars of cash laying around, it doesn't seem fair that our fellow citizens have to trudge through life miserably and that we should enact some laws to make their lives less bad? Why is a little bit softer version of capitalism so bad? We live in a shared society where those on the lower rung have it hard. We are all on the same team here and there is plenty of prosperity to share around. Meet and talk to people who are on that lower rung. Try to get to know them and understand their viewpoint, the struggles that they go through and what their lives look like.
This is rich. You assumed I've always had money. You assumed my political allegiances. You assumed I've never existed on a "lower rung".
That's all narrative, so in a way, you made my point for me. You've now distracted from the debate entirely and have earned a second person who doesn't want to hear what you have to say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as long as the system really is focused on the safety of drivers and other road users. That's the problem; nobody (rightfully) trusts Amazon to only have everyone's best interests at heart, or to not abuse this system. Because they have in the past, and they will in the future.
What's their incentive to "abuse" the system, that seems so self-evident to others, but somehow escapes me? At some point of abusing workers, too many workers will quit and/or regulators will intervene. From what I can see, other commenters agree that if this really is just a safety measure and doesn't transgress worker privacies in other ways, then it would be OK. So how about the critiques focus on ensuring that th…
To be replaced by others, whose options are to remain unemployed, hungry, and homeless, or to submit to low wages and shitty conditions.
> and/or regulators will intervene.
Two responses to this:
1. Will they? Why are they not intervening now?
2. A fine is a price. If they save two million dollars, at the cost of a $200,000 fine, they just profited to the tune of $1.8 million dollars.
You say it yourself;
> To be clear, I'm not making arguments or seeking responses that hinge on Amazon being virtuous and trustworthy; I've been in/around business long enough to know that's futile and that incentives are ultimately what matter.
Their incentives are always about making money. If abusing their employees makes them money, they are incentivized to abuse their employees, as they are doing now. Giving them additional tools and blindly trusting that they won't is, frankly, insane.
---
Where are people finding this weird mix of empathetic rationality, where a global corporation will find it in their best interest to treat employees well, despite repeatedly not doing so in the past? Do we apply this logic to repeated spouse-beaters? What's their incentive to beat their spouses?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So much this. You (op) cannot tell me with a straight face that if Amazon catches wind that drivers are considering unionizing they won't accidentally set their AI to flag any conversation recorded that mentions the word union for further review. Recording your drivers 24/7 with a camera/mic is a step too far. If you want to have a "black box recorder" that's simply recording the telemetry of the vehicle itself, that…
Anyone discussing unionisation on company property or systems is probably not as cautious as they should be.