3 ms·
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
by 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 agoHere 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 agoIn what world does maintainability and reliability increase through brute force hiring of low skilled and experienced staff?