▲ 413 ▼ Amazon is making its employees come back to the office five days a week (www.theverge.com) submitted 2 years ago by AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world 86 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 229 points 2 years ago (2 children) cutting head count without “firing” people. standard capitalism bullshit. stop using amazon. let it rot. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] thesystemisdown@lemmy.world 118 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's easy to avoid buying things from Amazon. It's hard to avoid AWS. It would be insane to try to suss out what provider everyone that I buy stuff from uses, and their third party relationships. Regulation is better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today [S] 39 points 2 years ago Yep, try browsing with ublock origin blocking all Amazon domains. Lots of things break because AWS is so large. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hillmarsh@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago In the old days people used to have their own servers... And you can still buy them... And the cloud really isn't cheaper... But whatever, it's ubiquitous today. Maybe someday people will wake the F up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Exactly. This is just more failures of govt to constrain and regulate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Clbull@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's easy to avoid buying things from Amazon I mean... Yes but also no. Amazon have gone to crap in recent years and has become a more upmarket Wish or Temu. Much of their storefront is full of Chinese knock-off brands these days. What Amazon does offer is somewhat reliable next (and sometimes same) day delivery. The only way you can get something faster is by travelling to a brick & mortar shop and buying in person. As for AWS, aren't we forgetting that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Google, even Alibaba and Huawei have their own cloud solutions? permalink fedilink source parent [–] EnderMB@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago The best way to do this is to correlate downtime with main providers. If a cloud provider goes down when AWS has outages on related services, it's probably using an AWS service. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sundray@lemmus.org 32 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yup. They want people to quit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it...and you're posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I personally read this as "one quarter admit they did it to get people to quit". If you think these folks are always transparent and honest, think again. They're just trying to say whatever gets them the least amount of bad PR This is effectively a layoff without benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty. Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which works fine as long as you don't mind keeping your worst employees, while all your best ones quit, which is generally the opposite of how it works during layoffs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ColonelPanic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago It does also work for them that they retain employees who are more likely to put up with their bullshit. They can cull the truly lazy ones at a later date as required, either by firing them or finding a similarly bullshit change that they're likely to be adverse to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thesystemisdown@lemmy.world 118 points 2 years ago (5 children) It's easy to avoid buying things from Amazon. It's hard to avoid AWS. It would be insane to try to suss out what provider everyone that I buy stuff from uses, and their third party relationships. Regulation is better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today [S] 39 points 2 years ago Yep, try browsing with ublock origin blocking all Amazon domains. Lots of things break because AWS is so large. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Hillmarsh@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago In the old days people used to have their own servers... And you can still buy them... And the cloud really isn't cheaper... But whatever, it's ubiquitous today. Maybe someday people will wake the F up. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Exactly. This is just more failures of govt to constrain and regulate. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Clbull@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's easy to avoid buying things from Amazon I mean... Yes but also no. Amazon have gone to crap in recent years and has become a more upmarket Wish or Temu. Much of their storefront is full of Chinese knock-off brands these days. What Amazon does offer is somewhat reliable next (and sometimes same) day delivery. The only way you can get something faster is by travelling to a brick & mortar shop and buying in person. As for AWS, aren't we forgetting that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Google, even Alibaba and Huawei have their own cloud solutions? permalink fedilink source parent [–] EnderMB@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago The best way to do this is to correlate downtime with main providers. If a cloud provider goes down when AWS has outages on related services, it's probably using an AWS service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today [S] 39 points 2 years ago Yep, try browsing with ublock origin blocking all Amazon domains. Lots of things break because AWS is so large. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hillmarsh@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago In the old days people used to have their own servers... And you can still buy them... And the cloud really isn't cheaper... But whatever, it's ubiquitous today. Maybe someday people will wake the F up. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago Exactly. This is just more failures of govt to constrain and regulate. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Clbull@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago It's easy to avoid buying things from Amazon I mean... Yes but also no. Amazon have gone to crap in recent years and has become a more upmarket Wish or Temu. Much of their storefront is full of Chinese knock-off brands these days. What Amazon does offer is somewhat reliable next (and sometimes same) day delivery. The only way you can get something faster is by travelling to a brick & mortar shop and buying in person. As for AWS, aren't we forgetting that Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Google, even Alibaba and Huawei have their own cloud solutions? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EnderMB@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago The best way to do this is to correlate downtime with main providers. If a cloud provider goes down when AWS has outages on related services, it's probably using an AWS service. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sundray@lemmus.org 32 points 2 years ago (2 children) Yup. They want people to quit. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it...and you're posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I personally read this as "one quarter admit they did it to get people to quit". If you think these folks are always transparent and honest, think again. They're just trying to say whatever gets them the least amount of bad PR This is effectively a layoff without benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty. Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which works fine as long as you don't mind keeping your worst employees, while all your best ones quit, which is generally the opposite of how it works during layoffs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ColonelPanic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago It does also work for them that they retain employees who are more likely to put up with their bullshit. They can cull the truly lazy ones at a later date as required, either by firing them or finding a similarly bullshit change that they're likely to be adverse to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago* (1 child) That links says only a quarter did it because they wanted people to quit, so it suggests that chances are this is not the reason Amazon is doing it...and you're posting while claiming it factually proves this is their motivation? Pretty deceiving. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I personally read this as "one quarter admit they did it to get people to quit". If you think these folks are always transparent and honest, think again. They're just trying to say whatever gets them the least amount of bad PR This is effectively a layoff without benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty. Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] draughtcyclist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) I personally read this as "one quarter admit they did it to get people to quit". If you think these folks are always transparent and honest, think again. They're just trying to say whatever gets them the least amount of bad PR This is effectively a layoff without benefits. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty. Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee -4 points 2 years ago Your position hinges on the survey not being anonymous. I clicked through and found nothing that claims it was not anonymous, and these things are normally done anonymously for exactly the reason you point out: less honesty. Do you have anything to back this up or is it simply that holding this belief helps confirm what you already believe to be true? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which works fine as long as you don't mind keeping your worst employees, while all your best ones quit, which is generally the opposite of how it works during layoffs permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ColonelPanic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago It does also work for them that they retain employees who are more likely to put up with their bullshit. They can cull the truly lazy ones at a later date as required, either by firing them or finding a similarly bullshit change that they're likely to be adverse to. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ColonelPanic@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago It does also work for them that they retain employees who are more likely to put up with their bullshit. They can cull the truly lazy ones at a later date as required, either by firing them or finding a similarly bullshit change that they're likely to be adverse to. permalink fedilink source parent