Its fascinating how these companies think they are fighting against some radical revolutionaries. All the Trump supporters they are scared to death of are ordinary people all over the country. There are not hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands. There are tens of millions. Right now this looks like a very small set of scared shitless tech companies and politicians that are overreacting when they finally had to meet people outside their bubble. This will hurt these company's businesses unimaginably. Their uptime whent from 5 nines to no nines.
Exactly, Centurylink demonstrated a couple months ago they alone could take down and disrupt IPV4 traffic worldwide. I'm starting to wonder if that was a simple configuration mistake or a pre-run.
They can do it, it is not hard to replace, for instance RDS with equivalent databases, SQS with something else. The hard part is they will have to find a sane ISP or non far-left marxist company to host or come up with capital for physical hardware and set up colocation or a data center.
I'm sure they are going through the same calculus. Leftists at all tech companies have been stacking their management with left authoritarian sympathizers for years, most from overseas. However, LPOD is probably heavily right leaning, so who knows what faction they will be on. (LPOD = larry ellison, prince of darkness)
What about calls for imprisoning people? That off limits? Because there are thousands and thousands of posts out there on leftists boards where leftists with delusions of grandeur are talking about who they are going to imprison on the right. That constitutes violence.
Since imprisoning people requires a trial by jury, and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it isn’t something that random people on the internet can take into their own hands. This certainly seems like much less of a problem.
AWS is screwing itself. No one will every trust AWS ever again. Why would any legitimate business use AWS ever again? Amazon doesn't like your product, they will shut off your site.
Parler is being used to plan murder. See the link below. Posts arent being taken down on Parler. This has nothing to do with Amazon not liking a product. People are planning actual murder. Are you serious ?
https://twitter.com/IntelDoge/status/1348099918381068289
In my opinion she should give some of that to the Amazon employees on the backs of which the vast fortune was made. Jeff and Mackenzie really fucked over the vast majority of people that work(ed) there usually through lies about RSU's, firing people before 90 days who were expecting health insurance, timing their pee breaks, etc.
Even if I agree that she has made a fortune on the backs of Amazon employees, I don't agree with this comment.
Here, MacKenzie Scott has made a choice to give money back to causes which support underprivileged people (which will doubtless include some of those same Amazon employees), which she did not have to.
You seem confused. The ideas that you say above, that workers should get health insurance and shouldn't be timed on their toilet breaks (workers shouldn't be exploited) are quite literally "leftist" ideals.
The leftists are saying because Trump challenged the legitimacy of the election results, they feel sanctimonious that instead of investigating claims they have the right to attack Trump voting US citizens (75 million) as a group whether politically or in unamerican ways such as in attempting to block free speech, arresting them, burning and destroying their businesses, attempting to get them fired from their jobs, etc.
Leftists live in cities around people that have similar values to themselves, whether LGBTQ, pro legal prostitution, free drug use, anti-white hate. When they confront Trump supporters, their mental model is that there are a few hundred people in that group who deserve "consequences" and that they personally are legitimate in effecting those consequences. They frequently don't leave the inner city and cannot really conceptualize tens of millions of people.
I mean, I'm not American, so I don't have much skin in this game, but from the outside, just no.
Challenging the legitimacy or outcome of an election is one thing. Democracy wouldn't survive if you can't challenge it.
They've had their challenges. They went to court 60 times and were dismissed or lost 59 times. Notably, the lawyers never actually claimed voter fraud in court because a courtroom has consequences for lying.
Furthermore - I think you'd be hard pushed to find any civilised democracy where a bunch of armed yahoos storming a building full of politicians is a valid "challenge". It's really more of an insurrection, which is pretty much the opposite of what democracy is about.
As for the actual topic: "Consequences" is nothing to do with your political beliefs or where you live.
There is no law against, for example, a person believing that "the jews deserved it". In most places there aren't laws against them saying it either. But, if they do say it, there's also no law protecting them from every possible consequence of saying it: e.g., being banned from a synagogue, or being called human garbage, or, if you happen to be using a private organisations equipment to broadcast that view, having the mic taken away - be it literal or figurative, such as a social media account.
Found the manager. This is just more developer hate drivel. Yes, if you think managers are more valuable, then obviously you are going to say engineering work is "incredibly limited" and manager activities are "orders of magnitude more impactful" Listen, no amount of ass kissing and brown nosing is going to solve actual tech problems.
It sounds like you're making assumptions in bad faith. I'm a SWE (i.e., not a manager) and I didn't read the comment at all like you did. On the contrary, I quite agree with it.
Well, as someone who has saved my company's ass multiple times to the tune of millions of dollars I think technical solutions are orders of magnitude more impactful and foofoo talk bullshit is incredibly limited. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Maybe noob coders "produce a day's worth of code" and that's all they can do, that's your perspective.
I've sat through dumb two hour meetings about deciding which words in a document should be capitalized. Is that what is meant by "make sure your team/business is doing the right things?"
I think what you're missing here is that the original comment isn't suggesting code doesn't solve problems when it counts. The thing is, developers often code things they never needed to. Or they code things off spec. Or they code things outside of the convention of what's appropriate for their immediate team or long-term needs of the product. The list goes on. Output could seem good for a long time before it becomes problematic, then the pure coder simply codes more to solve those problems. This is very circular and makes up a lot of work done by software developers in my experience.
I agree with what you're saying in part. Pure coding skills are essential, especially in critical situations like that. Soft skills won't fix broken things, for example. Salespeople can't deliver the features they promise without someone to develop them.
However, soft skills can help someone with excellent coding skills to know what to apply their skills to and when, and how to integrate their skills within a broad team of different disciplines.
This is arguably true in any field; I think it's often missed in software development because people have such a difficult time distinguishing boundaries of things. The problems you're solving, when you're passively or actively solving problems, when output is applicable to a specific problem, etc. Even software engineers themselves struggle with this.
Your ability to save your company's ass is an excellent skill to have, but it isn't directly related or exclusive to what the original comment was saying.
You have a very noob view of software engineering. You make a lot of generalizations about coders to support the theory that coding is low impact because coders fuck up a lot. Noob coders fuck up a lot.
When I saved my company's ass those times, no non-technical people were present and it was wholly technical knowledge that solved it. I could have and probably should have ignored the problems and let the talkers try to fix it and take the blame for millions in losses. So it is very apropos to the original comment.
a) I never said coding is low impact, although I do believe software engineers make a lot of mistakes
b) my generalizations are very common in software
c) saving companies’ asses with code is not common
d) I will never not be a noob
The tech lead at my place has just burned himself out and quit after making a load of poor decisions. He reinvents the wheel over and over again rather than use some prebuilt solution. I am going to have to maintain his undocumented, untested code. Experienced coders can be just as bad for over-engineering as noobs.
> Well, as someone who has saved my company's ass multiple times to the tune of millions of dollars
Even though it sounds good, this is actually a bad measure because all coding consists of constantly making new zillion-dollar mistakes and then fixing them as you go. You can always do a worse job, and if we're supposed to be impressed by you visibly fixing something, then mess up and fix you will.
