andonisus

I take a similar but somewhat orthogonal approach.

Most of the time, any major features that require refactoring are usually around the data model and its representation in code (the existing control flow and overall flow of a request through the system is generally fine).

I will build out what I believe the new data model should be, and then just work front-to-back, updating any references and refactoring the shared state and responsibility into the new data model, clearly separating out concerns and encapsulating responsibility.

This method has proved itself time and again, and I recommend it to anyone who needs to make large changes to and existing code base. That is, start with how the kernels of data, state, and responsibility should look, and everything grows from there.

I see it like this: it is my work. It is my name that goes on the CR, on the commit, on the documentation, etc. Why shouldn’t I take as much pride and genuinely care about it as much as I can? At the end of it all, it is my effort, and I will give he best effort I can.

I know I’m speaking about effort, and you’re speaking about becoming emotionally invested, but the latter is a natural manifestation of of the former; the emotional investment arises because of the effort I put forth.

Comp is meant to stay stable at the agreed upon target for the first two years. There is a cash bonus for years 1 and 2 used to offset the vesting schedule. The final 2 years are really dependent on stock performance. For example, I basically will need AMZN stock to get increase by 25% from todays value by Jan 2025 to be making what I did for the first two years.

It seems that the word “privilege” is doing all the heavy lifting here, but it sounds to me like it is a stand in for “having the ability to make anything but the default choice” (to remain in one’s location, in this case).

Both of these things can be true. There is a lag time behind hiring someone, PIPing them, and terminating them. Amazon was on a hiring spree. They are almost certainly still be bloated even after these layoffs.

Disclaimer: I work at Amazon as an SDE II on the logistics side of retail.

> You're ignoring what I said, which is that a right established by the highest court, and ten times affirmed by the highest court, including as recently as 6 years ago, just obliterated that entire history in a ruling that is guaranteed to carry a toll in human health and human lives.

All of this posturing is irrelevant to the fact that the right which was granted did not follow from the arguments being made. Our courts should follow sound reasoning when establishing unenumerated rights. They also should not care about what the impact would be downstream of their decisions; their reasoning should stand on its own.

> It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.

And some no longer do.

> I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?

Impossible to say, but it had to be a non-negligible amount. Either way, that has no bearing on which way the court should rule.

The laws represent the will of the people via their elected representatives. The court adjudicates these laws and their validity as it relates to our constitution.

Just because everyone may not be be able to agree on exactly when that viability threshold is or what reasons are justifiable does not mean we should not attempt to do so. Almost all states (and other countries) where abortion is legalized still have reasonable limits on when they may be performed (e.g., not after second trimester). I think we would both agree that an abortion of an otherwise viable and healthy baby one day before expected delivery would be unethical.

The religious arguments for banning all abortion for any reasons are not sound and I would not expect such laws to pass scrutiny when challenged in court (but who knows nowadays).

Many things people do don’t infringe on my rights. Someone murdering another person doesn’t infringe MY rights, but it is still wrong. A parent beating their child doesn’t infringe my rights but is still abuse.

All this being said, I support the right of a woman to receive an abortion, within reason. It is up to our elected officials to codify this right. It is not, nor should it ever be, the responsibility of the court to attempt to enshrine a right that does not exist through case law.

> The only objection anyone has to abortion is based on religious beliefs

Uh…what? I am not religious (agnostic/atheist) but I object to abortion after a certain amount of time except in the cases of grave bodily harm or being the product of forced reproduction (idk what the site rules are on certain language, but I trust you understand what I mean). I believe that the unborn baby is a viable human life at some point and that abortion without a justifiable reason after that point would be equivalent to murder. I also believe many people also feel the same way I do.

> The enumeration does not need to specifically reference the word to be applicable

Yes, but we are in disagreement on which rights are applicable in this case.

Agreed on bodily autonomy. It is my guess that the court would strike down laws that restrict abortion wholesale (when challenged), but who knows.

Of course, this is only applicable if the Congress fails to act; were they to pass a law that enshrines the right to bodily autonomy, there would be no issue.

Do you understand the difference between the constitution and the courts? The court does not invent rights, nor should it. It is the federal government’s responsibility to codify rights, and it is the courts responsibility to affirm them.

Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?

I don’t know why you keep bringing up religion, I have not mentioned it at all. Perhaps you are conflating the reason for some states passing of anti-abortion laws with the law itself.

Either way, the federal government does not grant this right, therefore it is up to states to decide.

> It's a constitutional right (9th amendment) to not have personal liberties stripped by the states which are not enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to privacy are all enumerably applicable to preserving this liberty.

None of these rights apply to abortion. If anything, there should be an enumerated right to bodily autonomy.

How is pregnancy not a personal circumstance? Anyway, you are right that they are not directly comparable because pregnancy and abortion are such unique things. I suppose the most similar analogy I could think of is a doctor refusing to perform a surgery which has a high chance of outright killing a patient and a smaller chance of treating the issue.

Either way, there is no constitutional right to an abortion, and that is the fundamental issue. Call your representatives and demand them to take action on codifying the right to abortion.

You do the same!

You left out the “without due process” part. The due process is the state enacting laws to restrict access.

Of course, congress could pass a law enshrining the rights to an abortion tomorrow. This would grant and preserve this right for all Americans, regardless of state, due to the supremacy clause. Hopefully, this does happen.

I could say the same about you. There is no right to an abortion. Therefore the state is not depriving a person of anything.

> nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

There is no federal law granting the right to abortion. Therefore, states may have enact their own laws to either affirm or restrict access to abortion. This process is due process.

You do not have a right to life saving medical procedures. You do not have a right to an abortion. There is no law or constitutional amendment that grants this. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

That being said, I believe women SHOULD have a right to get an abortion enshrined in law. It is up to our re-elected representatives to achieve this, not for the courts to invent rights thereof.

People are guaranteed early, unnecessary deaths when they cannot afford expensive medical treatments for their rare conditions. Or insulin for their diabetes. Or housing for their family.

Where in our constitution and laws are these things codified as rights? They are not.

In the same way, abortion is not a right. But I believe it should be. This is an issue that our elected officials must decide, not the courts.

Why not? They are enemies, not friends. We should vilify our enemies and celebrate our allies. This is the nature of the world. Sometimes you must draw a line in the sand and pick a side. It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor; each circumstance is different and should be treated with the nuance it requires.

They comp the difference in vesting schedule (against average) with a cash sign on bonus that pays out over the first 2 years. Your yearly comp is equal to getting 25% of the RSU value per year (plus the actual stock accrues value over this time).

I’ve heard about it while living my life? I don’t know what you want me to say. It’s just something I have been aware of happening long before now. And honestly, I’m not really interested in trying to convince anyone else. If you don’t believe me, that’s cool, but I know what I know. And since you’re too contrarian to even bother looking it up yourself, here is the literal first google result:

https://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/47231

Oh, and here is a literal company that sells a product meant to alleviate the need to urinate in bottles. They speak about such bottle urination near the bottom of the page:

https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/

I do not, but I would not have a problem doing it.

Thank you, that is exactly my point. The claim that had been going around was warehouse workers doing it, but now we see that it is delivery drivers. My point is that all manner of long-haul delivery drivers choose to do this, not just those that work for Amazon.

My opinion is based on this generally being a thing that delivery drivers choose to do. It has been true of long-haul truckers for quite some time (many of them would even take Meth just so they could drive longer and log more miles).

I honestly don't believe that choosing to pee in a bottle while driving for delivery constitutes "awful working conditions".

It's not whataboutism at all. I am genuinely curious, why now and why Amazon? People did not just decide to start peeing in bottles when working for Amazon, it has been happening long before.

I am of the opinion that all truckers (or people in the delivery profession) pee in bottles to save time, not just Amazon drivers. Why is Amazon being singled out here? I suppose the argument is that it is caused by their aggressive delivery metrics and policies, but would t this be true of any shipping company? If drivers are incentivized to by the number of packages they deliver to meet bonuses or certain payouts, isn’t it logical they would do anything to save time? How would you even change the compensation or penalty structure to account for this?

The US still allows, and has been allowing over the past four years, people to immigrate.

Yes.

Yes, that is my solution which uses the queue. I mean what the author of the post was doing would block, and I offered the code as how I do it in a non-blocking way. Sorry for the confusion!