I agree with you. What the co worker did to you was wrong. But I would also venture to say that there could be a reason specific to you as to why you were targeted in this way.
>But it still ends up a better place so that's what counts to me, and I highly appreciate the effort that goes in and the creativity seen when difficult things are handled way better than could be expected otherwise.
So you don't agree, but you feel despite your disagreement it makes HN a better place. So in a sense, you agree that his decisions are for the better.
Ultimately you didn't contradict anything I said. It is a dictatorship. You just agree with the outcome of his policies. We can caveat that with the fact you may not agree with individual policies but you agree with the overall outcome.
Yes there is a difference and despite that difference it's still a dictatorship. The thing is, whatever Dang says goes. That's the definition of dictatorship.
I think you just agree with him. Dang is a dictator whose policies you agree with, but ultimately you have no say in anything.
I'm responding to someone else who mentioned that toxicity is everywhere. Please address the overall topic, instead of making a personal remark about me. Thanks!
>In that there is disagreement or that the disagreement is presented in an especially toxic way?
Yes. Some people will disagree amicably but the majority of the time this is not the case. Many users use subtle degrading tactics (negs) to propagate the toxicity.
You think I'm just interpreting disagreement as negativity. No. I assure you I am not.
The stakes are higher at dinner because your face to face. So dinner conversations are actually LESS toxic. People on HN are hidden behind anonymity. The only defense is moderation.
I would say unless you have an opinion about something that is very different from the status quo you will rarely encounter toxicity. If you do have opinions that are very different from the norm, the toxicity is rampant.
See this here^^ this is a toxic post. Telling someone to grow up because they have a contrary opinion.
This is the perfect illustration about how some people are blind to the toxicity on HN, because I'm almost completely sure that the person who posted the above the comment was completely oblivious to the fact that he himself was going to contribute to the toxicity.
You're completely right. It's toxic everywhere. BUT just because it's toxic everywhere doesn't make it so you get to call HN the "pinnacle of non-toxicity."
It's like saying the least toxic venom on the planet is the pinnacle of non-toxicity... I mean it's still venom.
It's also worth talking about the toxicity on HN because it follows very specific patterns. It's also essentially a dictatorship. Whatever Dang says goes.
The toxicity is there it's just subtle and disguised. Here's a typical one you see on HN that is used directly to escape moderation:
"I find it odd that even when someone tells you the logical outcome you still deny it."
"It's baffles me and is so interesting to see someone behave this way even though it's not logical."
It's this intellectual arrogance where the commenter acts like he's some sort of hyper intelligent savant observing creatures of lower intelligence that is completely toxic. Whenever I see that type of garbage comment, I think dude... the other person just disagrees with you stop talking about him like he's some animal your observing in a laboratory.
>Every company I worked at had some form of "performance improvement plan" that essentially meant "pick up the pace or we will have to discuss options". The idea that on a team of 20 people, during the span of a year, not a single employee (expected rate is ~5%) is underperforming is worthy of writing a justification.
Disagree. The measure of the entire performance of the team will always be a bell curve distribution. Even pruning the lowest performers doesn't change the bell curve. Think about it. You remove the lowest performer, that switches the lowest to another person on that team who's now at risk of pip.
Here's a way to evaluate the team in a way that makes sense. Ask the manager if he thinks someone needs to be PIP'd rather then asking the manager "who's your pick of PIP for the year? if you don't have one you better justify it"
I think your viewing it from a microcosm and that the rest of the internet actually probably has a more accurate view given that you had to ask your manager about this.
What I'm hearing from others is this... there are good teams at amazon... amazon is huge but the overall culture is not what you describe. I guess I'm looking for a more overall picture rather then someone viewing it from the perspective of a good team.
>They absolutely can push back and say that no-one in their team deserves to get PIP'ed
You realize that a pip is not normal? Even one person getting PIP'ed on a team is is an event and abnormal. The fact that a manager has to "push back" for not pip-ing somone raises a red flag for me.
Well, this uptick I've seen only in the last couple months so I'm wondering is there a culture change or impetus for culture change that occurred within the last month or couple months or so?
I think it's unlikely and that you're probably most likely right, but I want to fish out some comments from people in amazon who know what's going on.
Ok. amazon has a high attrition rate because of it's culture. Making the pay higher won't necessarily fix that.
Does ANYONE in amazon see culture changes occurring at all? I'm willing to respond to the 5 recruiters contacting me BUT only if there is a huge drive to change culture as well.
Keep in mind valve is a business first. There interest is profitability. Its just that the direction of their interest happens to align with Linux. This is good, but if at some point in time it doesn't align, don't be surprised.