A friend sent me a job there and I’m extremely trepidatious about their approach. The job is supposed to be remote, but my current job is guaranteed remote, even after the company went through a wave of forcing some people back in the office.
That said, for the right paycheck, I could be persuaded back in-office, but dang if these folks don’t make it difficult…
So take unsolicited internet advice with a grain of salt, but my understanding from friends who work at AWS and from my own time spent working with AWS folks is that most of this return to office policy is focusing on those positions that were in person before the pandemic. They still have remote only positions, and positions with enough travel that they report to be exempted from the badge metrics whole on travel status.
Whether AWS is a good place to work really hinges on the team you are on and the manager. Most teams at AWS have a lot of flexibility in their work, and aside from this return to office reset of work norms, I would expect that to continue. I also predict that the badge monitoring and policy will fade in a year or so as the new norms are established, and individual team managers will have more discretion on it again. This policy is the company trying to shift the current default and culture which takes some top down directives. Once that is done, they won't spend the effort on the detailed tracking I don't think.
Seems like that would be illegal and they should be on trial. I wonder if I went into Amazon and started to destroy a PC or two would I be held accountable?
thaat's another rail line that needs to happen yesterday. hell, extend it into detroit and onto chicago. if I may dream for a moment, extend it from chicago to o'hare and have a system to transfer to and from rail and air travel painless, so you can connect onto and from international flights
Maybe they can all go to an instacart model or something like Amazons auto checkout model. Or just have actual cashiers. Maybe everything is in vending machines. Idk, but the current experience in retail mostly is horrible and I want to avoid it if at all possible.
Apples and oranges. If you are a cashier and theft occurs you aren’t paid enough to risk anything, including your life, to stop theft. Companies can hire more asset protection people.
Absolutely. Shoving a wall of text in someone’s face that you didn’t type and saying “read this” is not worth my time.
If you want effort, put forth effort. I can also link to a plethora of stuff and say “read this,” but I won’t because it’s a waste of time and you can find any information you want on the internet.
Sorry this needs to be spelled out for you. You’ll understand it as you get older.
Damn dude, do you gotta be a cunt on the internet for no reason or is it fun? They’ve been saying that same “you’ll get it when you’re older” since I was in school and that’s been a minute. Normally it came from some small minded blowhards, but I’ll give you benefit of the doubt.
Their effort was to find the sources for you that purport their claim. It’s not a big nuanced argument, they presented what they thought, you asked a question about what they meant, they linked you supporting information so you could be aware.
It’s not their job to dissect the sources for you, it’s their job to present their argument and if you didn’t get it then they link you the bits they used. If you still don’t get it, stop engaging with the person who linked sources.
When you were in school, did they teach you how to evaluate sources from multiple forms of media? Because the internet wasn’t as massive as it is today when I was taking those classes, but they still taught how to go through a magazine, website, book, and video sources to identify the bias and reliability of the source.
If the only conversations you’re having a full text and no one is linking to a source when they’re making a claim, you’re having a conversation, not a discussion or debate. It’s why people cite their sources for published pieces, gotta check for plagiarism and you have to identify where you got information you claim is factual, it’s just part of having those kinds of communications.
Look dude, I get it. You seem upset because I don’t see the value in being linked a wall of text on the internet. It’s because I’ve been there, many times, and it overwhelmingly is not worth taking seriously.
Like I said, you’ll understand this when you have more experience. I’m tired of repeating myself, and taking your insults.
Or probably depends on what the plan encompasses. If we’re talking geotechnical surveys, elevations, etc for 316mi over mixed terrain and over an international border, then the planning stage could actually encompass a lot (and better planning could save a lot of money for the construction phase).
If it’s just a discussion of “how might we do this” with a few plastic models, not so much
Yeah as if CoD hasn’t been literal propaganda for at least a decade. I mean, they literally present revisionist history as actual history in the games with no disclaimer or mention of it being entirely false. And no, I don’t mean when they make up events, I mean, they tell complete fabrications about real historical events designed to portray the US Military in a positive, or at least less negative than they deserve, way.
Probably. But I think the intention is to attract customers, not to push some kind of agenda. So instead of toning it down, I think it would be better to make it explicit and make games from different perspectives.
For example, make a WW2 game from the Soviet. Or perhaps Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of the early 1900s. Those could be as biased as they want because they’re telling the story from a certain perspective.
We know that the US Military contributes directly to Cll of Duty, both financially and through assets and non-tangibles. Whether or not the developers push an agenda purposefully, and I’m inclined to side with you that they aren’t trying to do so, that money and those assets come with strings attached that take the decisions out of the developers hands.
Hell, they put fucking Oliver North in their game, and made him look like a good guy. You can’t get any less contrary to reality if you tried.
The Wikipedia article on Oliver North says he advised on the Black OPs game, so it absolutely makes sense for them to throw him in the game in a positive light.
That said, I wonder how the US military would feel about Activision making a game set from another country’s perspective. It would probably have a similar appeal as a recruiting tool since it’s still a war game.
seattletimes.com
Top