4 ms·

From a few different devs at AWS I have heard a couple of common explanations: - Billing code/codebase and everything around it is (was?) a big crapshow and pe

From a few different devs at AWS I have heard a couple of common explanations: - Billing code/codebase and everything around it is (was?) a big crapshow and people are naturally reluctant to stick their hands in something so critical and hard to adjust (and equally reluctant to approve such projects). - Some teams believe that customers don't want such a feature and may have been explicitly told that they don't want that feature to exist. The latter part seemed like hyperbole to me but I don't have the context they have.

ineedasername 5y ago
naturally reluctant to stick their hands in something so critical and hard to adjust That pretty much lines up with my comment about engineers that would prefer to work on some bit of shiny new tech that's more glamorous than cost controls, and my general sentiment that AWS simply doesn't benefit from pursuing these changes.
- urthor 5y ago
  I imagine it's also the fact that you are rewarded for working on complicated projects that impact the bottom line positively. Driving this billing project is going to be thankless work, and at the end of it Amazon will lose money. It's a lose-lose.
rightbyte 5y ago
> - Some teams believe that customers don't want such a feature and may have been explicitly told that they don't want that feature to exist. The latter part seemed like hyperbole to me but I don't have the context they have. I have heard such reasoning many times to get away with all sort of BS. The argument is often impossible to refute, since you don't have any customer at the meeting and the feature is on the idea stage. So I guess it is some sort of argumentation fallacy, referring to a non-existing person?
- ineedasername 5y ago
  So I guess it is some sort of argumentation fallacy, referring to a non-existing person? The person might exist, but either way I'd say the fallacy is an improper argument from authority, in two stages: First, AWS is claiming authority on the matter and citing other customers as their evidence. That evidence is an improper appeal to authority as well because the expertise (or even existence) of the person(s) behind it cannot be validated. Sort of like a celebrity endorsement where you don't even know who the celebrity is-- e.g., An unnamed person who endorses a basketball sneaker but you don't even know who if they play professionally and actually use the sneakers themselves. For that matter, even a proper appeal to authority (area of expertise is relevant to the topic at hand, expertise had been validated, there are no conflicts of interest like getting paid for it) are not very strong evidence for a claim. They are indirect evidence where the person is saying "You don't need the data, I've reviewed it and you can trust me".

ineedasername 5y ago

naturally reluctant to stick their hands in something so critical and hard to adjust That pretty much lines up with my comment about engineers that would prefer to work on some bit of shiny new tech that's more glamorous than cost controls, and my general sentiment that AWS simply doesn't benefit from pursuing these changes.

urthor 5y ago
I imagine it's also the fact that you are rewarded for working on complicated projects that impact the bottom line positively. Driving this billing project is going to be thankless work, and at the end of it Amazon will lose money. It's a lose-lose.

rightbyte 5y ago

> - Some teams believe that customers don't want such a feature and may have been explicitly told that they don't want that feature to exist. The latter part seemed like hyperbole to me but I don't have the context they have. I have heard such reasoning many times to get away with all sort of BS. The argument is often impossible to refute, since you don't have any customer at the meeting and the feature is on the idea stage. So I guess it is some sort of argumentation fallacy, referring to a non-existing person?

ineedasername 5y ago
So I guess it is some sort of argumentation fallacy, referring to a non-existing person? The person might exist, but either way I'd say the fallacy is an improper argument from authority, in two stages: First, AWS is claiming authority on the matter and citing other customers as their evidence. That evidence is an improper appeal to authority as well because the expertise (or even existence) of the person(s) behind it cannot be validated. Sort of like a celebrity endorsement where you don't even know who the celebrity is-- e.g., An unnamed person who endorses a basketball sneaker but you don't even know who if they play professionally and actually use the sneakers themselves. For that matter, even a proper appeal to authority (area of expertise is relevant to the topic at hand, expertise had been validated, there are no conflicts of interest like getting paid for it) are not very strong evidence for a claim. They are indirect evidence where the person is saying "You don't need the data, I've reviewed it and you can trust me".