Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by treyfitty 1532 days ago
Let’s put it this way: if a company tries to brainwash you with 14 “core” principles, those cogs aren’t principled at all.

I went through the loop and made it to final round, despite my reservations just to see what it would be like. Of the 6 people I spoke to, I only had 1 positive experience. Everyone else was either being aggressive for no reason, or they were regurgitating words and had no value in the org. Hell, the “bar raiser” was the worst and asked follow up questions that were answered in the questions prior. On the design interview, another interviewer bragged about winning some AI award and was adamant that Kafka was the optimal solution for real-time doc editing- not my proposed web sockets… he was just downright rude about it.

Anyway, Amazon sucks for many reasons, but the biggest reason is that they are so successful brainwashing people inside and outside. You can see their success in all this by observing how quick we forget that their policies force employees to piss in bottles, die working in a tornado, and unethically hold a beauty contest to siphon tax payer dollars from the lowest bidder

1 comments

Websockets at scale are a special problem and he was probably right.

Asking questions for follow up meant you were missing some core piece of the ‘Amazonian’ way of tackling the problem.

Not being able to take the hints or criticism and thinking about it for years is probably evidence that Amazon would not have been a good place for you. That’s not always a bad thing.

I think you’ve just made my point clearer that Amazon is good at brainwashing. You’re basing peoples capabilities to fit in so rigidly, and worse yet, in such an uncouth way.
Being super conscientious isn’t useful. That’s not an Amazonism, it’s from living in South Africa.

The ability to fit in isn’t rigid. Many people don’t examine data, the impact to their customers, or actually explore a problem. Hearing people’s work history is often a series of assumptions made with little to no care for alternatives.