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.
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.
That's zero-sum: the (minor) cost the team pays for supporting the leave is repaid by the support they get when they need to take leave themselves.
The other things could and should have been improved by Amazon. Their obligation is to get you back into a situation as close as practicable to the one you left.
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?
If properly handled maternity cover is a pretty painless process. It's not like a boss quitting: there are handover periods and keep-in-touch mechanisms. The new manager should be explicitly hired for maternity cover, and have their expectations set. It happens in most of Europe, almost without comment it's so routine.
If it's a massive career-impacting hassle for employees of people on leave at Amazon, where they "suffer significantly" that's yet more evidence for Amazon being a terrible place to work.
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.
Lets see about this incoherent stream of consciousness ranting...
1. 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)?
Because even in a capitalism based society, there ought to be boundaries set up to prevent abuse of workers - directly or indirectly. You can't treat people like cattle.
2. 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.
False. If Amazon made a genuine effort and owned up to their past mistakes, revamped a few policies and company culture, instead of making meaningless PR-speak statements, that would genuinely change people's minds.
3. I dont see people who currently work at amazon complaining
Lol
4. 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.
Would be true if it happened to one or two people. But it seems like a pattern with Amazon. Hard to blame "bad luck". There is a positive correlation.
5. o one in these stories post about what they did to demonstrate that they were performing well or not
Because they were busy being sick with cancer.
6. why not ask how long a company should continue paying an employee who's performing poorly?
So the next time you have a bad day at work, maybe your boss will be completely justified in firing you.
7. 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.
Doubt this will be as common a scenario as you think, but lets assume it is. Lets even grant you that the company is justified in firing that employee. Does that make the cut-throat backstabbing, review anonymously, email on weekends and midnight, survive or die Darwinian culture at Amazon ok?
8. this whole thing has turned into a witch hunt
Wrong. Amazon is not a person. Nobody is demanding Bezos' head on a pike. It's about highlighting a cultural problem within an organization from which you'd certainly expect better.
9. Nobody cares to ask any of the questions that matter and allow any one or company to build off of.
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?
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).
