> I also work at Amazon, and I can tell you, your experience was pretty unique. Some teams are worst than others, of course, but no one expect you to pick up a project by yourself, fresh out of onboarding and own it end to end.
I am a SDE at Amazon and I can tell you for a fact that so far the majority of the projects I've been involved roll out exactly like this. The excuses vary, and fortunately I haven't seen the inclusion card in play yet, but all the gaslighting and sacrificial lamb elements and shifting responsibilities and career tactics are ever present.
> if you were hired for a specific team, and you feel is a bad match, you can talk to your recruiter/hiring manager and they will find you another team.
I have to call bullshit on this. Either you play that out in stealth mode until you are sure the other team picks you, or you are in a world of pain. As soon as you click on the recruiter button, your SDM and senior SDM are notified immediately, and if you are not in the best terms with them they can and more often than not do screw up with your plans and even your job. There's a horror story around my corner of the org of someone who wanted out of his team and simply did what you said should be done, but long story short his transfer was sabotaged by the SDM who afterwards placed him in a performance improvement plan with no return.
> But for them to fire you like that you have to be doing pretty bad, or maybe your manager felt you were a bad person.
No, not at all, at least from what I see on a daily basis. All it takes is that you get in the way of your manager's career goals. They have attrition metrics and goals and you have your yearly Forte to cull the herd and keep the average tenure below 3 years.
> I don’t use those words at work or otherwise, but aren’t they both gender neutral as derogatory terms? At least in modern times?
If a new hire presents himself as a threat to your career and/or your job, you're already in hot water because your team is spiraling out of control, and you get called out in your attempt to throw someone under the bus... Would you double-down with your self-preservation shtick, or would you have a sudden change of heart regarding taking the high road and just listen to criticism as a path to growth?
Oh, you'd be desperately holding onto whatever opportunity might present itself to save your behind, even if that involves turning yourself into a inclusion champion at the expense of a sacrificial lamb. After all, who is going to fire a manager who is an inclusion spokesperson and has already been subjected first-hand to gender abuse within the company?
> Just to make sure I understand correctly... the most compelling piece of evidence for you is the timestamps on the files?
If I understood it correctly, the most compelling evidence was the real data transfer rate of those emails, deduced from the file timestamps, which ruled out their provenance from the server.
> Something that's not only trivial to fake (...)
Well, in this case that would go against the original accusation, therefore it would either be pointless or the explanation would require a conspiracy with double agents planting fake compromising evidence.
> Something that China had been pushing for years now…
Given the source and the target of said message, it reads like a mob-like "you have a nice business here, it would be a shame if something happened to it".
> We call ourselves “Developed”. It’s already implicitly throwing in the towel - there is nothing more to be done. We’ve already developed.
I don't agree with this take. The terms "developed" and "developing" is just a politically correct term to classify countries based on their industrial base.
It's use has less to do with developed countries and everything to do with the need to frame the issue as countries working to get where others already are at the moment.
> This entire thinking and it’s psyche in our society feels like straight up propaganda. It used to be first-world and third-world.
I also don't feel you're right here as well. "Third-world" does not refer to a ranking. It was a classification based on where a nation was with regards to the Cold War. Either they're a NATO and NATO-aligned country, a Warsaw pact and USSR country, or you kept yourself out of the cold war and thus were a part of the third world.
https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=183440&curpost...