3 ms·

I think this is true of any company. As things get larger, red tape increases, and the mess of spaghetti code and complexity/inter-dependencies of systems means

I think this is true of any company. As things get larger, red tape increases, and the mess of spaghetti code and complexity/inter-dependencies of systems means it gets harder and harder for any one person or team to fully understand the environment and avoid/recover from issues. I actually think that the "pizza team" model in Amazon can help mitigate this, as each individual team operates as its own entity that is discouraged from relying on other teams for uptime... but this is only effective to a point.

chris_wot 3y ago
As the article points out, this is a very expensive way of operating and requires very high headcount. They don’t want mass layoffs because of the cost of doing so, thus they employ the unethical tactic of making life miserable for the ones they would have tried to lay off. What it also means is that they can use younger and cheaper workers. They can also outsource their work. Thus my concerns about reliability. It seems like a house of cards. I truly wonder for how long they can keep this up. Given our reliance on cloud computing and their prominent position within it, it may become a very rocky ride at some point for businesses who have transitioned their operational infrastructure to AWS. I think a lot of people treat AWS as an infinite resource that will never run out and will be completely reliable forever. I think, sadly, many organisations may get a shock some time into the near future.
- pylua 3y ago
  Here is maybe an uncomfortable truth for software engineers: it’s more efficient from a cost perspective to just something out there that is good enough, even if it makes no logical sense and is a mess. Maintainability and readability are best solved through brute force hiring instead of better practices.
  - chris_wot 3y ago
    In what world does maintainability and reliability increase through brute force hiring of low skilled and experienced staff?
    - pylua 3y ago
      The world where good enough / more cpu resources and just works is easier to get to than design the system in a logical way.
      - chris_wot 3y ago
        In other words, it doesn’t exist.

chris_wot 3y ago

As the article points out, this is a very expensive way of operating and requires very high headcount. They don’t want mass layoffs because of the cost of doing so, thus they employ the unethical tactic of making life miserable for the ones they would have tried to lay off. What it also means is that they can use younger and cheaper workers. They can also outsource their work. Thus my concerns about reliability. It seems like a house of cards. I truly wonder for how long they can keep this up. Given our reliance on cloud computing and their prominent position within it, it may become a very rocky ride at some point for businesses who have transitioned their operational infrastructure to AWS. I think a lot of people treat AWS as an infinite resource that will never run out and will be completely reliable forever. I think, sadly, many organisations may get a shock some time into the near future.

pylua 3y ago
Here is maybe an uncomfortable truth for software engineers: it’s more efficient from a cost perspective to just something out there that is good enough, even if it makes no logical sense and is a mess. Maintainability and readability are best solved through brute force hiring instead of better practices.
- chris_wot 3y ago
  In what world does maintainability and reliability increase through brute force hiring of low skilled and experienced staff?
  - pylua 3y ago
    The world where good enough / more cpu resources and just works is easier to get to than design the system in a logical way.
    - chris_wot 3y ago
      In other words, it doesn’t exist.