I've never met anyone that thought the LPs were meant to imply Amazon "really cares". I like Amazon because it seems more straightforward than other companies. It's a business and it wants to make money. The only way I've ever interpreted "customer obsession" is that it's mutually beneficial to do what's best for the customer.
That's exactly it though: it's often (perhaps even usually) not beneficial for Amazon to do what's best for the customer.
What's the point of "Customer Obsession" if it's secondary to "Amazon Obsession"? Doing what's best for the customer unless it isn't also what's best for Amazon is just doing what's best for Amazon.
Horrible take. The aesthetics and user experience of an app has a direct correlation to whether the average user (which includes me, a programmer at Amazon) will use a tool.
> Horrible take. The aesthetics and user experience of an app has a direct correlation to whether the average user (which includes me, a programmer at Amazon) will use a tool.
I've stopped using Amazon Music because the UI/UX is unusable. I've cancelled Prime and shifted my shopping to other properties such as Walmart because the continual user-hostile UI changes have pushed me away as a customer. Example, now making it impossible to filter by Amazon.com as the seller so my searches are inundated by screens full of all-caps Chinese counterfeit shit, now with infinite scroll! Accessing customer service entails more and more dark patterns by the day, and arguing with AI chat bots because I can't even get a human into chat anymore.
As long as you're proud of your descent into a knockoff AliExpress, I support your efforts. The important distinction here is these applications were all fine, before the UX gods got involved in "beautifying" them to the point they became unusable.
You're replying to someone that works at Amazon, not to Amazon itself. You also have no idea if they work for the shopping part of Amazon or Amazon Web Services, which is a completely different thing. On top of this, half of your complaints have nothing to do with UIs. As if UI designers are to blame for AI chat bots and chinese counterfeits.
Seems wrong to influence your son's decision based on your financial situation rather than his desires/passions. Of course if he's naturally interested in the trades then sure.
One has to think the ROI for any financial investment in someone <25 YO towards things like education pays off more than similarly-sized investments later in life.
Regardless of whether the parent can support that tuition cost or the kid has to take on loans themselves, it should be up to the individual whether they take on that risk irrespective of the parent's financial situation, which is I think where this heavily-downvoted reply was going.
As somebody who's education was way less supported than the rest of my family, who came out with a better job than all of those others in spite of that, there's a decent chance your kid will resent being "held back" by such a choice for a very long time if you give them trade school as their only option in life.
Lots of people find ways to be successful in the arts by eventually finding something cross-disciplinary, and with the direction most non-white-collar jobs in the US are heading I wouldn't bet my kid's life on trade school. What made sense as a sentiment on Mike Rowe's "Dirty Jobs" 10+ years ago doesn't quite hold up as well today, and those projects were funded by the Koch brothers and the whole "trade school is just as good" thing should be taken with a mountain of salt. I'd love to see more data proving trade school proves better today, especially for young adults with educational backgrounds and access to learning and job opportunities whose parents are in the economic class to be browsing HN
Passion doesn't pay the bills. It's good to be passionate about something, but many passions are not marketable.
Many have drowned in student debt following their passions, but this wouldn't be so in many countries that have university education fully covered or significantly subsidized by taxes.
The countries that have "free" university education also steer young people into career paths starting in middle school. If you're not the sort of person who will succeed at university, you get directed into vocational or trade school or apprenticeships, etc.
If passion doesn't pay the bills, it certainly can't pay taxes. Why should engineers and plumbers and garbagemen pay taxes to send someone to art school for years?
Once something is paid for with tax money, then the people paying the taxes want a say in how it's spent -- which is not just reasonable, it's a requirement of a liberal democracy.
Of course, countries with tax-funded higher education ration degrees. There are limited slots, and art courses are usually at the bottom of funding considerations.
Exactly! Passions are good hobbies. Many people who take their passion and turn it to make it their source of income regret the decision because it sours the passion —it become a job.
There are a lot of ways to make money. Picking a job based on money is a good way to be absolutely miserable. My parents pushed me towards making money my entire life and there is nothing I regret more than following that advice. Every day I wake up dreading going to work and it seeps into every aspect of my life.
Presumably you have enough money now to switch to something that makes you happy?
Personally, if you’re going to be miserable anyway (as most Americans are these days), it’s probably better to be miserable with money than without money, lol
I'm 29 and have 500k saved up (live in Santa Monica which is quite expensive), but yes I think I will quit my next stock vest which is Friday.
And idk. My best friend from high school moved out here with me and he's a waiter making 40k a year and seems totally happy. Works like 30 hours a week, no mental stress, able to work out and work on himself. I think money is highly overrated.
Making 40K a year is only sustainable while you're in good health and don't have a family to support. I remember my carefree twenties as well, but things can change as you get older. There is no retirement plan on that kind of income other than waiting tables till you die. At least you should recognize that your relationship to money is very different than theirs. Having half a mil in savings is a completely different ballgame.
I think both situations are unsustainable. I'm not financially stable because I hate my job and might quit at any time and he doesn't make enough money.
But I think my main point is both of us have a way of becoming sustainable so you might as well do what makes you happy instead of working a job you hate for 8 years. Being a waiter making 40k isn't enough long term, but working your way into a higher end establishment or management is. A girl I dated started out as barista, became a store manager, and is now the regional manager and makes ~125k a year and more importantly she is a perfect fit for the job and enjoyed it the entire time.
All I'm trying to say is there are a lot of paths to a sustainable life even when following your natural inclinations.
But anyway OP responded his son's not super interested in college anyway so his plan sounds good to me anyway.
The world is cruel and wants to see us all ground to dust. The typical HN denizen might know this at an intellectual level, but few of us have the lived experience. I sincerely hope you never have to learn how much of a privileged perspective you have.
If you don't want to be poor, don't go to university.
Academia should be a place for people who run away from money, because it's the last thing upon the list of interests for them. Academia should be a place for joy in learning concepts, and in some circumstances, which strive to be useless. Mathematics is one of the most exemplary fields for this, which is summed up quite nicely with the following quote:
"The mathematician does not study pure mathematics because it is useful. He studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful."
Never go to a university expecting to improve your wealth status, because it very likely won't happen. Turn elsewhere to find wealth.
Meanwhile in the real world, large companies and public jobs all have practically mandatory education requirements. Your pay as a public employee in Germany is literally determined based on whether you have a BSC or MSC or none.
> Following passion is for rich people (or people who get unlimited student loans).
I think this is a truism that people want to be false.
But in any developed country, most poor people are pretty rich when compared to the world, and it offers them lots of freedom to choose what field they want to work in, where they want to work (both city and company), etc. There isn't the expectations that sons take their fathers' jobs and that daughters take their mothers' (often being a homemaker).
It still sucks to be relatively poor in a developed country, but most are rich enough that they can follow their passions in ways their grandparents never could and half the world can't today.
Giving the benefit of the doubt here, I assumed the push toward trade school is because that makes the most sense for the child in question. College is not for everyone, including a lot of people pushed into attending.
It really baffles me sometimes how readily we assume our conclusions apply to others. Most serious decisions in life require balancing multiple difficult trade-offs. To think that our particular biases, experiences, resources and difficulties are anywhere close to another's is a huge leap.
It's fine to speak from one's experience, but to say that someone else should make the decision one thinks is wise based on a single comment is either ignorant, arrogant or both.
Edit: I replied to you @allenrb, but I'm not directing these thoughts toward you. I'm just pointing out a general behavior I see (but wish I didn't) on the internet and HN.
Seems like if we don't think 18 year olds are not legally responsible enough to drink alcohol, then perhaps we shouldn't allow them to take on life-destroying amounts of debt.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Heard this sentiment 100s of times.
Also housing is really only out of reach ina few highly desirable places. Many of the places that are now super desirable weren’t that great when the previous generations were moving into them (SF, Santa Monica). Maybe the new generation needs to create a community and develop it themselves.
I can’t think of anywhere off the top of my head that housing could be considered in surplus in the US. Can you? The fact is housing now consumes a much higher percentage of income than it did for earlier generations. Either wages need to catch up or housing prices need to drop.
There are many places in the US where housing is a surplus. The obvious example is Detroit (as well as other "rust-belt" cities), where many functional houses have been demolished because there is no demand. Many rural areas are also losing population.
Yes, And sales/marketing, and just about anyone who are naturally agreeable
Another way to look at it is that, because of natural inclination and compiler training, it seems that many people in software are inclined to avoid the usually useful architectural practice of "receiver makes right" and instead find comfort in unnecessary precision and quibbling.
…why? Sorry I’m not being flippant here I mean it. Why would this be okay? What is the reason that I would want someone to be able to intentionally take advantage of me as a person in a way that benefits them but not me when I have no personal connection to them?
Moreover, why would I let a corporation or other business do that?
Im genuinely curious where your thinking is at with this and hope you’ll elaborate beyond this short reply you gave.
If you already know the javascript ecosystem then it's probably fun. But if you don't its heavily draining. Also Go is decidedly antifun so maybe not a good comparison.
