This is an extraordinary and disingenuous leap, and it doesn't even merit responding to as a proxy for your willingness to engage with others, but to make the superficially obvious point more crystal clear: the existence of folks who prefer the communal and social aspects of work in a common location is not up for debate, and no, their preference on this subject does not imply that they uniformly think everyone should share their preference.
Please take a deep breath and consider the extent to which your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of people who don't share your opinion may harm, rather than help, your cause.
Disagree. The comment addresses the sentiment fairly
> People want to work in the office with other people. If they go and end up working alone because their team is remote, then there is no point.
The author would crave for others to be present to satisfy their whim of not only wanting to go to work, but also dragging others reluctantly there. It's worthy of a walkout
Probably not, which is why an attrition strategy might work for both downsizing and trimming the fat, as the less motivated/willing to drink the "kool-aid" are filtered out and not replaced.
Sure, but -- if you're reading tutorials to learn yourself enough k8s to do damage, as provided in the link we're commenting on -- you don't know k8s. Parent is a reasonable question for this thread.
I read the parent's emphasis in "even if they wanted to follow the law in good faith" on even. It's quite possible they agree and meant:
I don't think they want to follow the law in good faith, but even if they did, they'd have to shut down while they restructure to accommodate the law, so this outcome doesn't tell us much about their thinking yet.
I'm no expert, but my understanding is that pig is a combination of
- a language for specifying data transformations, and
- an engine to compile programs written in that language into mapreduce jobs to execute on a hadoop cluster
it was designed to easily map some common functional and SQL idioms (e.g. filter, group by w/ aggregation functions) to parallel execution for processing huge amounts of data.
Impala is another big data project that is an engine for planning and executing SQL on data stored in a hadoop cluster.
You've brought exactly as many sources to bear in this conversation as the parent you've replied to, which is to say, none. When admonishing others for their lack of sources and making a counterclaim, you may want to consider providing the source yourself.
As for sources of evidence suggesting disproportionate use of force against black persons, here's one to consider:
Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black. Additionally, black individuals were unarmed when fatally shot more frequently than white persons.
>Victims of fatal shootings by police were majority white, but disproportionately black.
That depends on what you take as a baseline. I would assume that police shootings mostly happen in response to violent behavior. I couldn't find any data on the violent behavior, however there is an open FBI dataset on homicide offenders by race [0].
If you assume a correlation between the number of homicide offenders and the general probability of violent behavior, it could very much explain the disproportion you pointed out.
The table you linked is a little confusing because it's focused on the murders, but the offenders are more relevant to your point. It also excludes a lot of murders where information about the offender is missing, so the overall numbers seem too low.
So your point stands: when you talk about "disproportionate", you need a baseline. If you choose the proportion of the general population as a baseline ratio, it looks like police violence disproportionately hurts blacks. But if you choose the proportion of known murderers as the baseline ratio, it looks like police violence disproportionately hurts whites.
Note that there is a subtlety here: the baseline ratio is simply a ratio to use as a comparison point. I am in no way implying that all people killed by police are known murderers. Nor am I saying the ratio of known murderers necessarily extrapolate to the number of justifiable-use-of-force incidents.
EDIT: I am really just saying the baseline expectation matters, and that the general population is not the only meaningful baseline. I am not saying which baseline is the "right" one. That depends on which specific policy you are considering.
I think the GP would use your source to prove his point as well. An absolute disparity of 2.8x but it does not consider the level of violent crime a particular racial category commits.
Your source also suggests unarmed white people are nearly twice as likely to be shot than unarmed Hispanics. Doesn't that contradict the narrative of racist motive by white police?
I have to wonder how many people were killed by police. Was it 100 or 10,000? The difference in magnitude could see these racial biases diminish or worsen.
And select 2018, you'll see a total of 991 people killed by police. If you also filter by race, you'll see that 229 were black and 454 were white. I'm using 2018 because it's the most recent year with good FBI stats to compare to.
That table is excluding a lot of cases where there is missing information (that's why the numbers don't add up to 14123). It shows 2600 blacks were murdered by blacks out of 6570 murders with enough information to be included in the table. If you were to extrapolate to 14123 total murders, then you would estimate 5589 blacks were murdered by blacks in 2018; and 5754 whites were murdered by other whites in 2018.
That means blacks in 2018 were over 20 times as likely to be murdered by another black as to be killed (justifiably or not) by a police officer (black or white). Whites are about 13 times as likely to be murdered by another white as killed by a police officer. Note that "white" include latino in these numbers, but it doesn't look like the number of latino murders is high enough to have a major impact on the overall analysis (though feel free to dig in to that as well).
I'm not passing any value judgement here, but the data do seem to paint a different picture than the simplistic view of a racist police system. I conjecture (and am open to evidence that supports or refutes this claim) that the vast majority of problems blacks face in the U.S. happen long before risky police encounters, so police reform is unlikely to be very impactful by itself. In fact, there is a major risk that it will be counterproductive, if reform causes police departments to be less effective at their jobs and allow criminals to do far more damage.
AFAIK there's an exception for some geos like the Bay Area (and maybe NYC?) where salary can go as high as $180k (or maybe $185k.. I don't know the exact number). That might be why levels.fyi reports higher than $160k (or it could just be lies) but the general gist is correct. Amazon has a hard cap on their salaries. Any pay over ~$180k (or whatever the number is) is given out as either cash bonus or as stock.
Sure, no arguments here about the existence of a top end — that’s moving the goalposts though. There is not a hard cap at 160K.
As an aside, is this materially different than any other FAANG? All the offers I’ve seen when browsing tools like levels.fyi scale much faster in stock/bonus compensation than in salary.
It isn't "moving the goalposts". GP was correct about there being a hard cap at 160k (including the geo we are discussing in this thread). You found an exception to that cap, likely due to it including geos other than the one being discussed here, and I explained to you why that might be.
The point of the entire thread is that "Glassdoor says this person makes 170k" is misleading because Amazon is unique with these salary caps. Even executives do not make higher than 160k (or 185k in SF) salary, so looking at that number on Glassdoor or levels.fyi doesn't tell you much. If you are trying to determine an Amazonian's compensation (as this thread was trying to do) you need to be aware that the salary number alone is not an indicator of total compensation.
It is materially different from other FAANGs, because AFAIK other FAANGs may give high proportions of their pay in stock, but they do not have a hard cap for salary. At Google, when promoted to VP level you may still get a 10% salary bump along with your 50% stock increase. But at Amazon, after you reach $160k you will never get a salary bump again. This leads to confusion for people that aren't familiar with the stock grants because if they are comparing Google vs Amazon pay, they may go to Glassdoor see that a Senior Developer at Google makes $300k salary while an Amazon Senior Dev makes $160k, and not understand why there is such disparity.
It was just an example, not referring to an actual position. There isn't even an actual title called "Senior Developer" at neither Google nor Amazon. If you want a real job title to go look at, look at the pay for an L7 SDE at both G and Amazon. At Google: $270k salary, at Amazon: $160k salary (according to levels.fyi)
I swear half the comments on this site are just nitpicking "nuh uh you are wrong about this tiny one word in your comment" while ignoring the actual point of the discussion.
There's Senior SWE title. I assumed that was what you meant. They comprise the bulk of Google's engineering, and their base is about $180K. Everything else depends on performance or lack thereof.
That's fair. I meant it more of an abstract "a developer who is in a more senior position at the company" rather than explicitly someone with the title "Senior [Developer/SWE]", but I can see why my comment was confusing.
In general yes. This cap goes up to the VP+ level at amazon. At G/FB you can get base salaries in excess of 300K at that level. At Netflix, salaries can break 500K since stock is handled differently.
And yes, there is a hard cap at 160K. The hard cap apparently changes based on geographic region, but that doesn't really matter for the people in Seattle (the majority of Amazon's employees) who are under a 160K salary cap.
Just as a point of comparison, an L4 at Google could have a 160K salary.
If that was true, HN wouldn’t make their name green. The fact that their name is green is an indicator from HN that their comments should be scrutinized.
Great. Now do that. Scrutinize. Rather than complain. All three points the OP made are entirely factual statements. If you detect bias, please inform us why?
Throwaway accounts are discouraged in the site guidelines:
>Throwaway accounts are ok for sensitive information, but please don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to.
This user isn't revealing sensitive information, and it seems like they are trying to hide a conflict of interest.
The community guidelines are addressed by other users below...
- THE name is green for a reason.
- OP can declare in a public domain that he has no conflict of interest by any direct or indirect means.
As a long time member of this community, it is a simple and just request. You may choose to diverge the attention elsewhere for your own motives or beliefs.
OP: please declare that you are free from any conflict of interest.
I’m grateful to hear your story. These days, it seems all too easy to see only the bad sides of the internet.
It feels like news breaks every day about yet another way that the advertising industrial complex robs us of agency, another insensitive corporate gaffe goes uncorrected, or a CEO ousted for their malignant influence on a company lands on their feet with no repercussions — sometimes at the same company.
I grew attached to my computer at a young age — It felt like a chance to make real all of the possibilities that felt so out of reach in the rest of my life. It’s been a really hard road to face the current state of the net, like one of my childhood dreams has turned sour.
So, when I see a story like yours, I’m grateful to be reminded of the ways that the promise of a more connected world is not yet lost, we can still do some good. I hope you enjoy your new job and São Paolo and that this is the beginning of an exciting next chapter!
well, you'll be glad to know that I'm working on a project that helps children eat healthier food and exercise. I'm using machine learning to provide a custom experience for parents and children alike (not all children have access to the same type of food - strawberries, for example, are expensive and hard to find on some parts of Brazil so the app must not indicate that kind of food to people from that area)
Please take a deep breath and consider the extent to which your unwillingness to even acknowledge the existence of people who don't share your opinion may harm, rather than help, your cause.