[deleted]

Look over there!!! Its their fault ! Not ours!!! Now buy more stuff !

I never applied, but I had Amazon recruiters hitting me up from my LinkedIn profile, sometimes three recruiters for the same position within a few weeks. I told them I wouldn't work for Amazon, since it was evil, they agreed, but then all called me again a month later with no memory of the previous contact.

In classic BI style, you have to be careful with the wording in the article RE: sensationalism.

The practices they're talking about are pretty standard (and IMO, can be smart moves) in tech - creating multiple postings for the same job with different titles/geos (to cast a wider net), in particular.

The memo IS NOT saying they hired 3x the allocated positions; rather, it's saying the additional postings have caused an increase in instances of mistakes being made (e.g. backfill hired for a person who ended up staying on, etc.)

[removed]

Indeed, from what I was reading about Amazon six months ago overstaffing seemed the least likely scenario. But then I don't have a publicity arm to generate news articles, I just read comments in tech subs.

Amazon needs to mass fire it’s management, including all the way up the chain. This doesn’t just happen because of employees. Someone was signing off on all this supposed overhiring.

So why are the employees bearing all of the cost alone? Fire the managers which make more than them and undoubtedly cost the entire organization a huge amount of money between recruitment/on boarding, salaries, severance, and naturally opportunity cost.

#TrueKnowledge_On_Navratri
चैत्र नवरात्रि

इस नवरात्रि पर अवश्य जानिए कि देवी दुर्गा को त्रिदेव जननी क्यों कहा जाता है?
जानने के लिए अवश्य पढ़ें ज्ञान गंगा।

Ex amazon worker here,this makes me sick, so many of us on the shop floor were over worked, I'd end some shift with my feet bleeding because of the distance I'd walked, only 1 member of staff to deal with 30 trucks in a night, targets for this targets for that, reports every 15 minutes to ensure the shift was on track.

People broke down, they were stressed to hell and now I hear other departments had 3 times the staff they needed, we were pulled up if they over booked agency by even 1 and we didn't correct it by sending someone home. Oh I was technically management by the way, very low level, I left because I couldn't face pushing people like they wanted anymore.

Fucking shift show of a company.

Surprised Pikachu face

[deleted]

I hate to say it runs like this but it sort of does.

They need to be in the same groups and clubs as the people working or hiring at the companies they want to work for.

While they may eventually get something with just a resume, referrals from local infosec groups, meetups, and clubs is extremely helpful.

Also, at least in infosec, I haven't seen FAANG companies all that interested in hiring remote work at the moment. In fact, those remote seem to be disproportionately targeted in these rounds of layoffs. I've had more remote or hybrid job offers from smaller infosec companies. Just take care if they are looking at a private company without a predetermined exit strategy.

In my experience these smaller companies expect you to know their specific product and services prior to interview; particularity in cloud (e.g. containers, docker, apps, etc).

TLDR: There are a solid number of small public (and private) security focused companies with remote work. Getting referred in from people you know is important. Knowing the specific product/tech wins the interview.

Right. Comprehensive "oversight" is hard because teams are different and specialized. There's not some omniscient team who is able to watch all details. Parts of the business consider normal what other parts consider excess.

But go over your budgeted costs and that'll be noticed real quick.

It sort of reeks of, “Timmy picked all the good players for his red rover team and is ruining recess!”

Late reply. I think you're overestimating the reliability of these tools based on a anecdote. Google Lens can achieve such accuracy on smaller pieces of text because it has been trained to guess what the next word will be based on what words precede them, the OCR itself doesn't have to perfect so long as the text follows a predictable pattern, which most real life prose does.

When dealing with fictional settings however, with names and terms that were made up by the author, or otherwise are literary in nature and uncommon in colloquial English, this accuracy can drop quite significantly. It might mistake an obscure word for a much more common one with a completely different meaning, or parse speech which has been intentionally given an unorthographic affection on purpose as random gibberish.

I've used tesseract to extract text from garbled PDFs in the past, it still took a painstaking number of reviews to catch all the errors that seemed to fit a sentence at a glance, but were actually different from the original. It definitely can cut down on the amount of work needed, but this still isn't feasible to instantly and accurately transcribe bodies of text as large as entire books, otherwise you'd see it being used much more often.

So Amazon created jobs, even too much jobs? And this is a bad thing?

.......I guess ignore all the exclusives like fucking Final fantasy games Sony's bought....

They didn't just make them THEY ALSO BOUGHT A LOT OF THEM!

Even corporate positions. Used to be difficult to get a corporate job at Amazon but I have seen colleagues get them easily. I seen a controller get hired as a senior staff accountant lol. Not sure what’s going on with their hiring.

[deleted]

I had this experience. I went through 3 recruiters that simply disappeared partway through the process, and finally got a 4th that was super responsive, right up until they were laid off. At that point I moved on.

just buy an xbox or a pc. people bought playstation for god of war and bloodbourne lol

If anything engineering is understaffed at amazon, many core teams pulling 60-80 hour weeks plus 24-7 oncall 1 out of every 5-6 weeks

[removed]

I stand with you.

>You are trying to dismiss Sony Computer Entertainments contributions to gaming.

Nowhere did I do that, but this is more emotuonal argument from you...it has nothing to do with the market or business.

>They earned those exclusives, by having a hand in developing them.

Emotional argument. Microsoft earned their exclusives by being successful enough to buy those development houses.... it's just as dumb as your argument. This isn't some guy sitting in his garage inventing something only for a big bad corporation to come along and steal it...this is two massive corporations competing in a space both buying up dev houses when they feel it is a good business decision. I'm against mergers generally, but gaming is massive and easier than ever to get into...there isn't a risk from this kerger of monopolising the industry.

>because you are trying to make a false-equivalency but you know it falls apart if we actually look at the details.

What details? That one company developed their properties and another is trying to buy properties? Nobody is denying it, but it's simply irrelevant to anything but how you personally feel.

>By your logic, Nintendo doesn't to have the right to do whatever they want to do with their Mario and Zelda IPs

You are just making up more nonsense. Nowhere did I mention that Sony or Nintendo shouldn't be able to do what they want with their properties. All I was pointing out is that whether they create it or buy the company that created it is functionally the same. One doesn't deserve special consideration by the law over the other.