jeastwood

Wow this is something else. I thought we had it bad in Scotland, but this sounds worse.

In Scotland there are quite a few places where the council use a different tenement flat numbering scheme from the post office. Edinburgh council for example https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/24357/statutory-....

> It is recognised that Edinburgh has a unique character which also translates into the flat numbering systems used. > Edinburgh has two main flat numbering systems in operation; the traditional tenement numbering system e.g. > GF1,1F1 and the modern flat numbering conventions e.g. Flat 1, Flat 2. Where development takes place within > properties with the traditional tenement numbering, this numbering system will be retained. New development will > be allocated the modern flat numbering convention. > Properties in common stairs must be allocated a main street number. Numbers are then allocated internally to each > flat for example, Flat 1, Flat 2. For the traditional tenement numbering system, flats are allocated numbers in the form > 1F1, 1F2, etc. 1F1 should be interpreted as 1st Floor, Flat 1. > The rotation of the internal numbers follows the rotation of the staircase, with the highest number being located at > the door furthest from the last riser on the stair.

But the post office (by default) uses a simple numbering scheme, which is the de facto standard even though the "legal" address is the one set by the council. Absolute nightmare.

> If you are a small team solving a small part of a larger problem and you have done a good job of defining your external interfaces

I think that's where you and the other commentator are talking past each other. Amazon tends to have great managers and senior ICs that get the responsibility and technical divide right.

My experiences outside Amazon unfortunately point towards this being hard to get right in the first instance, and really really hard to fix once it has gone wrong.