This sounds extremely regressive. Basically rich developers will all be getting a huge property tax break by not having to pay taxes on the value of the land/building improvements, while small businesses and homeowners who can not afford to improve their property (or extract profit from it) will not be able to keep up with rising land taxes and be forced to sell. What a stupid idea.
> rich developers will all be getting a huge property tax break
These proposals would generally be revenue-neutral, so the same amount of total tax would be collected, but assessed by parcel (adjusted for demand) rather than by parcel + improvements. An area where there was demand to house lots of people might still have high taxes because the land would be in high-demand because of its potential to host big buildings, whether the buildings were there or not. In other words: they'd have to build the building to afford the tax, because if they put a parking lot on it or whatever, the taxes would swamp any revenue.
As to small businesses/homeowners: ideally in such a scheme, improvements they might want to make would be more affordable than they are under the current system, because they wouldn't owe taxes on the increased value. Ultimately though, you're right: systems like this are meant to address a circumstance where nobody can afford housing because there's way more need than there is supply, by incentivizing increasing the density of housing in such areas, which means some small structures will need to be torn down and replaced with bigger ones, and people unwilling or unable to do that will be incentivized to sell to someone who can. Their well-being gets weighed against the hypothetical well-being of the larger number of people that might otherwise be housed by the larger structures that would replace where they live now.
I interviewed there (with about a half dozen people). Interviews were a joke, it was all whiteboard leetcode with no real insight into technical thought process or real world work talk.
I did ask every person I met "How many hours, on average, do you work in a week?"
Ever single person gave me a non-answer that tried to change the topic. My favorite response to the question was "We are super flexible on where you work, like sometimes I like to work from a cafe". If that had been the only person I asked, I might have thought he misheard me. Since a pattern had been established at this point, I just moved on.
I know every team in a big company is going to be different, but my experience is that they churn and burn fresh coders and let the more ruthless, politic-y type rise up.
Let’s put it this way: if a company tries to brainwash you with 14 “core” principles, those cogs aren’t principled at all.
I went through the loop and made it to final round, despite my reservations just to see what it would be like. Of the 6 people I spoke to, I only had 1 positive experience. Everyone else was either being aggressive for no reason, or they were regurgitating words and had no value in the org. Hell, the “bar raiser” was the worst and asked follow up questions that were answered in the questions prior. On the design interview, another interviewer bragged about winning some AI award and was adamant that Kafka was the optimal solution for real-time doc editing- not my proposed web sockets… he was just downright rude about it.
Anyway, Amazon sucks for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that they are so successful brainwashing people inside and outside. You can see their success in all this by observing how quick we forget that their policies force employees to piss in bottles, die working in a tornado, and unethically hold a beauty contest to siphon tax payer dollars from the lowest bidder
Websockets at scale are a special problem and he was probably right.
Asking questions for follow up meant you were missing some core piece of the ‘Amazonian’ way of tackling the problem.
Not being able to take the hints or criticism and thinking about it for years is probably evidence that Amazon would not have been a good place for you. That’s not always a bad thing.
I think you’ve just made my point clearer that Amazon is good at brainwashing. You’re basing peoples capabilities to fit in so rigidly, and worse yet, in such an uncouth way.
Being super conscientious isn’t useful. That’s not an Amazonism, it’s from living in South Africa.
The ability to fit in isn’t rigid. Many people don’t examine data, the impact to their customers, or actually explore a problem. Hearing people’s work history is often a series of assumptions made with little to no care for alternatives.
Most of the feedback I’ve read about working at Amazon seems to be negative. It’s hard for me to reconcile though. As a user of AWS, I love many of their services and the possibilities AWS opens. Most of the negative feedback I’ve read centers around: PIPs, management, work/life balance, on-call, and frugality. If Amazon wants more folks to consider working there, I think they really need to get in front of this from a PR perspective and address these concerns.
Lol when I said that at an org-level all-hands everyone laughed, but the need for improved PR is very real.
But it’s important to remember that there are a ton of extremely happy people at Amazon (or at least AWS, where I worked) they just aren’t as vocal online - management, scope and culture were incredible in my experience (it’s a huge company where managers have a lot of flexibility, YMMV). And some of the biggest day-to-day issues you hear about like crappy offices or excessive frugality were a thing of the past when I was there. And in terms of PIP, I only had one experience with it - having a mechanism for identifying and getting rid of the people who are a drain on everyone else was very nice.
Thanks for commenting here with more context. I’ve considered apply to AWS in the past, but was hesitant to due to the mostly negative online feedback about working there. However, as you suggested, there has to be folks who love working there. I read the reviews for my current employer and there are some negative reviews that don’t seem accurate of my experience there. I think my employer is a generally good place to work. I typically work 50-60 hours a week consistently, so I wonder if the work/life complaints regarding AWS would be that different from the demands of my current position.
Not the OP. But I interviewed once got a contract to hire position. The recruiter said after about six months I could apply for full time. If I got accepted then immediately the expectation is to put in 60 hours a week or more.
I don't think the fact that it can be enabled/disabled by environmental variable indicates malicious intent. It could be as simple as that Intel doesn't care to test there compiler optimizations on competitors' CPU's. If have to distribute two types of binaries (one which were optimized but could break, vs un-optimized and unlikely to break), I would default over to distributing the un-optimized version. Slow is better than broken.
I understand some end users may not be able to re-compile the application for there machines, but I wouldn't say its Intel's fault, but rather the distributors of that particular application. For example, if AMD users want Solidworks to run faster on their system, they should ask Dassault Systemes for AMD-optimized binaries, not the upstream compiler developers!
Anyways, for those compiling their own code, why would anyone expect an Intel compiler to produce equally optimized code for an AMD cpu? Just use gcc/clang or whatever AMD recommends.
Conservatives for the rich with a modicum of backbone to appeal to people who wouldn't vote for corruption scandal parties like CDU but Christian Linder seems to be losing his backbone as well.
