saranagati's comments

Amazon didn’t just buy these addresses, an AWS service was just assigned them due to some future known growth. Amazon bought the rights to use all of the 3/8 network years ago and is just now allocating some additional subnets of that to AWS services.

The thing is that these animated shows were doing something that just wasn’t allowed in tv shows at the time but they got away with it because they were cartoons and not real people. At the same time that made it all even more taboo because cartoons were for children.

At that same time the most immoral live action show was married with children, magnitudes less immoral than some of these cartoons. These animated shows really did open the door for making television something that didn’t always have to be family friendly.

AWS does have something similar to SRE’s though, at least in terms of skill sets. AWS has system development engineers (sysdevs) and systems engineers. When we made the role of SysDev we specifically chose not to call it SRE because we didn’t want people to think of it as a google style SRE.

The intent of SysDev is to create and maintain the internal, non-customer facing services. This includes writing code and creating services that maintain the reliability of the service/system. It’s usually related to the infrastructure in some way, whether it’s servers or networking but also expands to understanding how all the different sub systems of the AWS product work together.

The core difference here between sysdevs and SREs is that SREs often take over a product from an SWE team once it’s reliable and maintain / improve it. Sysdevs create an internal product and maintain it through the life of it.

Of course in AWS not all orgs follow the intent and often implement the role differently.

Very few people at these companies would have any idea about the vulnerabilities and even less would know where the reports came from. Big tech companies realize that they employee a lot of people and heavily restrict who can know about the reported vulnerabilities,me specially before they're patched. To think that those "privileged" people would tell you about it is asinine, especially regarding this very high profile event.

Is that really that much different than hard drives? No hard drive manufacturer uses the same standards to determine how much space there will actually be on the disk. You can get hard drives that spin at many different RPMs. You can get hard drives with many different connector types. Drives with different numbers of platters. An 8TB, 7200 RPM, SATA, Western Digital drive is not going to have the same seek time as a 1TB, 7200 RPM, SATA, Western Digital drive.

There are so many combinations of hard drives that will result in different performance for different situations all with different costs. Then you start talking about cold storage as well and you've moved into other media formats.

Just because there is a page worth of a pricing model doesn't mean AWS or any cloud provider is doing anything incorrectly. You're paying for on demand X and engineers who are going to utilize that should understand it as well as they would understand how to build an appropriate storage solution of their own. On demand just means now they don't have to take the time to design, implement and operate it themselves.

on top of that, apple is much more of a device company than the others. this means that they will have a lot more people on the technical staff that aren't developers and those other positions may have a larger candidate pool of blacks.

the ironic thing is that tidbits like this are a great way to teach young kids about science. instead we just had to hear about how video games made you stupid and ruin our cartridges by blowing into them or snapping them into place.

yeah that's a very valid point. shareholders (and potential) of a publicly traded company should be aware of concerns like this and I retract my points about whether people should be judging on this (though I doubt most people commenting do it in that light).

yes they are. which is the improperly managed company that dealt with them as a single thing?

1. I agree however there hasn't been any analysis done on the situation of these claims. for example how long after this lady returned was she put on a PIP? what were the terms of her PIP, as in what did she need to improve? did an insurance glitch happen to other people in the company or was it just her?

2. what policies have actually been violated? again no analysis has been done (publicly) for any of the existing claims. if amazon does an analysis and finds that things were done according to policy and that policy is not out of the ordinary from other companies, they would have to divulge personal information about these employees which should not and I'm sure wont happen. maybe the ceo of the company can instead make a broad public statement that this should not happen and that if it does happen to report it to him personally?

4. in the scope of how many people who currently or have ever worked at amazon, this is effectively one or two people.

5. they were too busy being sick to report why they got a bad performance review and what they did to improve it?

6. what? I said that no one has said what they feel is acceptable and no one has reported how long they were performing poorly. of course one day is reduculous, but is 6 months?

7. now you're following along with all the rhetoric. as others have reported, the anonymous reviews are usually used to provide good feedback and help people get promoted. emails on weekends and midnight are just a random anecdote from the nyt article that didnt go into much detail. cut-throat backstabbing? that's the first ive really heard of this. survive or die? is that not true for every company out there?

8. just because it's a company doesnt mean it can't be a witch hunt. additionally if you read the comments many people are demanding bezos' head on a pike. regarding the culture, what about the people who do enjoy and thrive in that kind of culture?

what are you talking about? reporting to a new manager is far from a minor cost, especially when it's a manager you never reported to to begin with. since everyone else is making random unfounded statements, her going on maternity leave probably had a lot to do with why there was only one person left on the team when she came back.

what about the new manager? why should they have to change teams? basically what you're saying is that everyone on the team should suffer significantly so that one person can return to lead the same team with different members rather than just leading a new team that needs a manager?

what if she wasn't doing great before she went on the first maternity leave and was in fact doing poorly?

but she did return to her existing job, it's just that it was now working with another team. would it be fair for the people who had been working for the interim manager to now have to switch managers again? that is going to affect their annual review and possible promotions. on top of that all her directs except for one were already gone, so why would it make sense to put her back on that team? did she start working there specifically to run that team because thats not usually how these big companies work, people are expected to have to occassionally switch from one team or another.

this whole nyt article has turned into a fucking witch hunt. what exactly is amazon NOT doing to address these issues? why should it be any business of yours on how they address the issues since you aren't involved (proverbial you, maybe you do work there)? the way things are going it makes absolutely no sense for amazon to post anything about the situation because whatever is said will be torn to shreds and people will demand more information.

what exactly would you expect them to do to address the situation? I dont see people who currently work at amazon complaining. some say thats because they're scared to which could be true or maybe it's just that the people who are giving these stories happened to have a lot of things fall into place at just the wrong time to make it seem malicious. no one in these stories post about what they did to demonstrate that they were performing well or not, only that other things were happening in their life then they got bad performance reviews. you know what? thats actually a common thing, major life events happen and your work performance starts to become poor. why not ask how long a company should continue paying an employee who's performing poorly? it's something that I have never seen an answer to by anyone or any company. on top of that what if someone had been doing poorly for a good amount of time, then just before review time comes up when they're going to get a bad review, they announce that they are pregnant or sick. what should a company do then?

as I said in the beginning, this whole thing has turned into a witch hunt and nobody cares to ask any of the questions that matter and allow any one or company to build off of.

valid points but to be fair this thread is referring to google not amazon.

how did this become a topic of sustainability? it was banned due to health concerns.

the point still stands. if we were to invest in cures then someone making a weapon would be a moot point because their weapon wouldnt do anything.

if someone makes an extremely deadly virus, id much rather we have spent the money investing in a cure than trying to track down who made it.

I think you're missing fapjacks point. its not that you're not letting a few people in that are just as capable, its that you're not finding all of the top talent possible. looking around my organization I would say of the people that one out of every 50 people who are hired are observably way more talented than all of the other engineers in the org (ignoring years of experience and strictly speaking about talent + measured output). half of those do not have degrees whereas 90% of engineers in the org do.

so if youre looking for top talent, you are limiting yourself by a significant amount by only looking for people with degrees. looking further into this, if the top talent you do have doesnt have many people to challenge them, then they will leave because they either feel like they arent progressing or feel like they get frustrated by the others not being able to contribute at a level that they expect.

and this is the state of the world. you talk about how the white house is curtailing the issue of problematic staff by mentioning how that an online petition is not the correct place for that and everyone responds to you about petitions. to be fair to them I guess you even jumped on the bandwagon within your own comment. still no talk about overzealous prosecutors.