rochester46

Amazon and AWS have completely separate privacy/security teams and different ways of approaching it. _Every_ AWS service treats user data like radioactive material. If you're an AWS service and you're found to have a way for AWS employees to get access to customer data, that's a fast track for you and your managers to get an invite to a meeting with the CEO to explain how it happened, how you're going to fix it, and what you're going to do to make sure it never happens again. That's not an exaggeration, they take it very seriously.

I was able to enable it myself through the web interface, no contacting customer support required.

>And to enter it, you ... append it to your password?

Are you implying this is wrong somehow? It's a fairly common way to do 2FA and there's nothing wrong with it. On the backend, all it's doing is taking the input, substringing the final 6 characters and inputting that as the code, and then uses the remaining characters as the password input. It's essentially just a shortcut that allows you to log in with one click rather than having to enter your password, click submit, enter a code, then click submit again.

Per the FAQ, if you for some reason don't want to append it to your password, it'll send you to a normal "Enter your 2FA code" form like you're probably used to.

The main issue for me is that the 2FA is locked to using the Symantec VIP 2FA app, which is disappointing from a usability standpoint.

>For whatever it's worth, we issue CSAT surveys to every candidate who interviews (about 6,000 onsite interviews in 2019)

I interviewed in 2019 and never got a CSAT. The recruiter (and rest of the team) completely ghosted me after telling me an offer was coming. No further communication, and certainly no CSAT.

It seems that could be a huge hole and your entire CSAT program is subject to confirmation bias if you are not even sending them to the people who are most likely to respond with a negative experience. I'm not sure I would trust this "empirical data" you have.

This is such an insulting excuse.

Ironically, this is almost the exact same attitude I got in my poor experience interviewing with Stripe. Interviewers were constantly late to our calls and mixed up who would be interviewing me more than once. Despite that, I still was told I was going to receive an offer... only to be ghosted for weeks. Once the recruiter finally reached back out, they said the position had been cancelled but they would find me another position. Spoiler: I never heard back from them, and they ignored all of my further communications.

Throughout all of this, I was apologized to several times (credit is due there, I guess) and each time the excuse was "ha ha sorry things are such a mess, that's just how things are when you work at a start up!" First of all, "haha we're a startup" is not a valid excuse for being late to meetings and ignoring communication.

Second: you're a company worth tens of billions of dollars, have thousands of employees in offices around the globe, and were founded a decade ago. You are not a startup. You are not a "small team". Stop using it as an excuse.

You did not provide a specific counterexample. A reference to a sole example says nothing about the majority of arguments. That is not how majorities work.

Your original reply to my comment was an overgeneralization, and used that overgeneralization to attack a point that I never made. I'm not engaging in your argument because it was made in bad faith to begin with.

>And that US federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, $15,080 for a years worth of work. That is not a livable wage in almost any area of the country, especially the population centers the Amazon warehouses are located in.

And that's why it's great to hear that Amazon pays more than double that minimum wage, as I noted.

>In that sense $15 an hour is nothing to be proud of

I don't see how it's not. $17/hr is an incredibly high wage for the target audience of these jobs. $17/hr may be pennies for SWEs on HNs who think that anything under $100k/yr is oppression, but $17/hr for someone who was previously homeless, or a 16 year old getting their first job, or someone just looking for some extra cash part time during the holidays, is an amazing wage.

Amazon warehouse work is an amazing stepping stone for people that have no previous work experience or skills, for them to get a wage and benefits way above average. Indeed, Amazon even offers to pay for 95% of tuition costs for warehouse workers that want to get an associates degree, so that the warehouse work truly can be a stepping stone.

The fact that people far beyond their "entry level" stage of their career are stuck working in an Amazon warehouse seems like a problem with society, not Amazon, and there's only so much that Amazon can do there.

>I also would be shocked if your average construction worker or Starbucks is getting federal minimum wage, I have a feeling they are closer to $15 than you would think.

I didn't say they are getting federal minimum wage. And yet a quick Google will show you that Amazon warehouse workers get paid more than these workers.

>One question, do you work for Amazon? Your history consists solely of comments defending Amazon and their labor relations. If you do, it would be nice of you to disclose that before posting about your company.

No. My comment history is such because I use a special account specifically for posting about Amazon, because unfortunately this website has become very vitriolic as of late and I doubt some of the posters here would hesitate to try and ruin my life if I attached my main account and real name to statements defending "the evilest company in the world".

I fully agree with your comment. I see no reason why these workers shouldn't be unionized. In my comment, I am addressing the pay and benefits argument that is being brought up by many HNers, because your statement "The pay being high is good" is a very rare statement on this website in regards to Amazon. And I am also not wholly convinced that a lot of people aren't conflating the two (I see a lot of arguments that these workers need unionization because they are paid 'poorly').

How does that compare to Cloudflare? Is Cloudflare completely free for CDN? I can't find a clear pricing page.

The "top-voted comment" anywhere has no bearing on what is or is not the majority argument.

>That’s because they’re not decrying the wages or health benefits

Speak for yourself. The vast majority of complaints about Amazon on this forum are explicitly referencing pay.

Does AWS (and GCP and Azure) not do the exact same thing when transferring data out via Cloudfront (or their respective CDN)? Is Backblaze really special in that regard?

Canadian minimum wage is relatively high (and your statement is only true for Ontario, btw. In other parts of Canada, Amazon warehouse worker minimum pay is 150% minimum wage). When viewed through the lens of the reality that is the American workforce, things look very differently.

In the US, Amazon warehouse workers make more than double the federal minimum wage. They make, at minimum, more than double the wage of an average McDonalds worker. They make more than Starbucks store workers, more than most construction workers. Even in Canada, Amazon warehouse workers make more than your average Tim Hortons worker.

Warehouse workers also get the same health insurance that Amazon SWEs get, which is better health insurance by far than even most white-collar American workers have.

>The majority of their employees are unskilled labour.

Unskilled laborers getting double minimum wage and great benefits seems to me to be a good thing for society. It baffles me that people are trying to decry this.

This comment seems like it comes from a place that has a warped understanding of what typical pay is.

>They are on the lower end of big tech salaries.

Amazon pay may be slightly lower than FB, Google, or Netflix. But the $150k entry-level starting pay that most of the corporate workers get is still so so so much higher than the vast majority of companies pay that it's laughable to imply that Amazon doesn't pay them well.

>And the vast majority of their employees are warehouse workers, and they are paid very poorly.

Amazon warehouse workers get $17/hour minimum and amazing health insurance (probably better health insurance than most of the American posters on HN) for a job that requires no experience, education, or really any prerequisites.

When compared with a SWE job like most HNers are familiar with, it's really easy to look down on $17/hr as "paid very poorly". When compared with skilled manual labor like oilfield workers, $17/hr is low. But when put into perspective that this is a job available to almost anyone, even those unable to get job elsewhere, $17/hr is a huge amount to someone who was previously homeless or to a 16 year old getting their first job.

Again for perspective, McDonalds pays on average half of what Amazon's minimum pay is. And yet I can't even recall the last time I saw a post lambasting McDonalds as being an evil company for how it treats its cooks and cashiers.

You mean like the data center employees who all do have to continue to work from their offices? Those employees who I haven't seen a single complaint from, or any articles written about?

Some demonstration of class divide, that.

edit: in the interest of being less combative I've reworded this entire comment.

The First Amendment does not apply to this situation. The First Amendment applies to restrictions to speech from the government, but provides no rights or privileges when it comes to repercussions from private entities.

>For example Amazon can't fire a employee for their race, or religion, or sexual preference. >because Amazon can not retaliate by firing an employee for reporting workplace safety concerns.

Correct, but this isn't why they were fired.

There may be some gray area where the workers could claim protection under the NLRA if they but that really depends on additional details not provided in any of the reporting so far (such as which company policies they broke), and that has nothing to do with any constitutional rights.