just_passing_by

Sort of.

If it's a liability to say nasty stuff about the employer and most of the ex-ones throw some heat the nearest possible conclusion is that the truth tends to bow to statements that are observed as outdated and controversial by present employees.

It just can't be a smear campaign against just that one company.

I'm aware current employees comment over here. Two things to mention: principal/architect roles are always based not only on a merit of skill but politics. So, taken with a grain of salt.

Moreover, if you inspect the person's comments you will notice how "legally" clean they are. Even the phrasing looks the same for both comments "based on my experience", "this information if wrongful" etc. Looks like those were refined by the legal team before posted.

I wonder all that, because since my first engagement with AWS and Amazon recruiting around five years ago the engineering tone did not change. That concerns in a way that putting an effort to get a job there may turn out a major disappointment.

The cutthroat approach is nice sometimes as it adds the taste of competition but the whole noise seems like you're about to get buried rather than played or burned out.

>Amazon could easily have repercussions like getting picked up by the press and spun into some crazy story

Didn't NY Times expose help to shape Amazon workplace for good?

What amuses me is that most of retractions come from ex-Amazonians not from the current staff. This is the only company i know dealing with that much criticism from engineering.

Even more to add is that the article is more or less fresh and at Amazon's scale i doubt any major changes had undergone in the last 10 months.