4 ms·
Disappointing. He asserts in the beginning of the blog post that he'll debunk the original piece using "data," and then proceeds to provide mostly personal ane
by asdfologist 11y ago
Disappointing. He asserts in the beginning of the blog post that he'll debunk the original piece using "data," and then proceeds to provide mostly personal anecdotes.
Much of his so-called rebuttal goes along the lines of "The original article claims many employees experienced X or heard Y, but I have never experienced X or heard Y in my team!"
- techwizrd 11y agoI agree. I read the entire thing looking for data and found none. He repeatedly produced quotes from certain internal pages, but there is no way for any reader to verify them, nor does that make it data.
- zerotolerance 11y agoQuoting the official text is data. Summarizing internal data sources is data. In contrast to the interpretive dance that were the quotes from third-parties, this was dripping with data.
- cscurmudgeon 11y agoNon-anonymous ex-employees are not exactly third parties.
- serge2k 11y agoBoth are primary sources of data for an article.
- zerotolerance 11y agoThis author is a primary source.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- dang 11y agoThe NYT piece was also anecdotal. Maybe he didn't mean by "data" what you thought he meant. To dismiss an entire article because of one word seems uncharitable.
- troisx 11y agoData has a definition. The author didn't use any data to back up his antecdotal claims. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
- DrScump 11y agoSpeaking of data, (to nitpick): "I’ve been at Amazon since March 24, 2014, which means I have 18 months of data to draw from..." Um, that's less than 17 months, unless my calendar is broken. They should given their Engineering Leads better calendars.