StaticRedux

It's easy to write these things off as poor designs in games, and I'm sure some are, but it's also likely that quite a few are creative solutions to solve problems with the provided resources at the time. Those creative solutions probably don't stand the test of time well as new API are created, bug fixes are released, and loopholes that were taken advantage of are closed.

Branding makes the world go round. Whether it's forward, or in this case, backward.

I always thought Stack Overflow/Exchange should have a way to filter questions from users with less than a certain amount of karma and any of those questions/ansers/comments should not be able to be down voted or closed as duplicate or low quality or off-topic (the most annoying close reason).

Anybody that gets annoyed by those questions can opt to not see them and focus on higher quality. Anyone that wants to help newbies can. Those people can also be marked as unfriendly or hostile and won't be able to answer newbie questions if they get a certain number of reports.

This seems like it would solve two problems: oft-repeated low quality questions annoying users who want more complex help, and encouraging newbies bc they won't be afraid of retribution.

'if I asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse'.

Maybe throwing more power at the current solutions won't ever make the progress we want, we need to find our car, so to speak. And a lot of people are working on that.

That's not what he said. He said that bc they have been working a lot of overtime lately, their paycheck will probably work out to be around the same as they would normally get. He also said it was shitty that they did it without warning.

But you already knew that. There's no reason to falsey attribute malice to what someone says just to flamebait.

My comment you replied to was a direct response, not in the context of the original conversation.

> I'd argue it's more like *slower growth

Exactly my point, just in a different context. I was speaking on a much smaller scale than Amazon as an example.

If you own a restaurant, and can open a second location and hire more people, you are reinvesting and expanding and bringing in more revenue, which you can reinvest to open more locations. If you pay your current employees more instead, then you aren't opening that new location, and there is no growth (or much smaller growth if your employees do a better job, which would be incremental compared to opening a second location), but people are happier and less taken advantage of.

It's a fine line to walk, and very rarely do companies get it right. Costco is an example of a company that does get it right. There are, unfortunately, far more examples of companies that don't.

The person that replied to me asked for evidence of how reinvestment causes slower growth than paying people more. That side conversation had nothing to do with Amazon.

> Also, I'd in fact argue that making sure your employees have time to go pee wont significantly hurt your bottom line

No one is arguing that. In fact, I agree with it.

Ah, cool. Well for what it's worth, I agree with what you said. Becoming a behemoth at the cost of human suffering should not be acceptable in a civilized society.

> Where is the evidence?

Basic math?

If you have $1 million to spend (as an example), and you can open a new store and hire more employees at a lesser rate, or pay your current employees more and not open a new store:

opening a new store = growth and more people hired + more revenue

paying your current employees more = less "employee misery and churn" and no growth + less revenue

You clearly completely ignored my second sentence. "That's not to say they shouldn't treat employees better'.

It is a simple fact I stated. Reinvesting in new areas allows them to employ more people in those areas. This isn't an opinion, it's just a fact.

> If you can't grow your business to be a monstrosity without treating your employees like slaves, your business should not exist.

Hardly any companies make it to be "a monstrosity" in the first place. Jeff Bezos did it by reinvesting and expanding. Apple did it with ridiculous margins and taking advantage of people in foreign countries (who literally jump off the roof of FoxConn to end the suffering). Microsoft did it with monopolistic business practices. IBM and Google as well. Giant clothing companies to this day still get caught with their hands in sweatshops. Banks milk people for fees and have the power to crash the stock market through stupid gambles, taking peoples savings down with them. Airlines take advantage of their employees by paying almost nothing and customers by merging until there is very little competition and then gouging fees from people. Same with ISP's.

The idea that "a business shouldn't exist if it can't get gigantic without unfair practices, taking shortcuts and hurting and taking advantage of people" is a moral one, but not realistic in today's world.

Should it be changed? Yes. Of course.

But all I did was state a fact. It's how the economy works. And Amazon would not employ as many people as it does now without the reinvestment in new areas and taking shortcuts in other areas, like how they treat their employees. Just a fact. A fact that is despicable. but a fact nonetheless.

On the other side of the coin, if they hadn't spent the money on reinvesting, they wouldnt be the size they are now or employ as many people.

(This is not saying they shouldn't treat employees better, just that the reason they employ so many people in the first place is bc of reinvesting and expanding to more areas. It's not as simplistic as, 'if they have the money they should spend it on people instead of business')

Not to mention the most important part in my opinion, having the experience in your field to create a successful startup. Having a light bulb idea when you're young is all well and good, but without the experience I would imagine your odds of failing are much higher.

#MorningPeopleAreSmug

I'm sure anyone who is a content creator would disagree with you. The only reason to abolish copyright would be to freely copy, steal, and use other people's works without compensation or even attribution. It can easily take more than two years to even write a thorough and well-researched article or book. Would you spend two years of your life creating something with the knowledge that it can be freely stolen and resold by other people the day you release it?

Introducing major bugs happens in software all the time. Finding it, working out a solution, and fixing it quickly is a hooray for open source.

I'm speaking on the subject based on experience in my own field (I don't presume to know other fields). But I believe what I said applies anywhere.

> An entry level position does not mean you get to learn on the job from scratch or near scratch.

3+ years doesn't mean 3+ years "in a job". That makes no sense. (Well, maybe for some companies it does, but you don't want to work there anyways). For some reason people can never get over that.

It means 3+ years with a technology. It means don't walk in the door out of a Java college having used nothing else and apply to work on a Triple A game written in C++. It means don't show up after a weekend html course and apply for a job using Node/React. And before you say "well that isn't me for so and so reason", it happens ALL the time to employers.

An entry level position does not mean you get to learn on the job from scratch or near scratch. It means that you are at least capable enough to work on small or easy problems and features and an employer or other devs can coach you along the way and you'll know what they are saying to you.

That's all it means (to any reasonable employer).