What data did your friend use to come to that conclusion? Would you be willing to share so we can come to our own conclusions based on the evidence presented?
Can you participate in one (1) conversation without asking for data or studies? Obviously he doesn't have a list of articles his friend used to make an offhand comment.
I wouldn't call it "obvious" that someone would accept another's opinion without any info to back it up and then extol it, though it's very interesting to me that you did.
I didn't accept or reject his opinion. I pointed out that you're acting like an unsocialized ass when you say shit like "Wow, got a source for what some other guy based his comment on 5 years ago?"
I don’t understand GP’s comments. It’s like they are so obstinate or cargo cult fixated on a good idea and messed it up so badly to think that asking for evidence is appropriate everywhere.
“Do you have data to support your stated preference for chocolate ice cream?”
A lot of people have cottoned on to how important hard evidence is for forming informed opinions. Unfortunately, many of them have yet to learn that you can judge a conclusion on its own merit without a bibliography of every idea that led to it.
edit: or would you prefer "that's what a free market does"? Either way, this is a remarkably incendiary, and frankly absurd, attempt to recast voting with one's wallet as "dictatorship".
I am deeply ambivalent about my tenure at Amazon overall, but I unconditionally applaud the level of psychological safety in their dev culture: there is a shared understanding that any system failure caused by a single person is necessarily a failure of the process that governs changes to that system.
If there were any singular behavior I wish every tech company would adopt, it is that level of perspective on what makes a system reliable.
My experience there was overall very negative. My comment above, though, was actually a very bright spot, and I want to call out the positives that exist.
At the time, I had several years in the industry under my belt but was new to big tech companies, and especially the tech that Amazon had built. I lacked confidence in myself but I was super conscious of actively seeking out the help of others. And it failed spectacularly - one SDE3 in my team with whom I was sort of paired would quite literally back away slowly when I was showing him an issue I needed his advice on.
Big companies like that have such variation in teams, and I think I just got rather unlucky in my experience.
There really isn't a discussion to be had, unless you seriously want to try the claim that "shallow" and "substance-free" don't have substantial overlap.
Just accept that your comment did not live up to the guidelines set by this site, and try to learn from that.
> "But they're really really actually super-duper truly totally bad!" isn't a valid argument, since many, many people can use it and they will.
It is absurdity to make the claim that, since anyone can say anything, no meaningful concept of objectivity can exist. Interesting how often it recurs in "free speech at any cost" argumentation.
