somethingwitty1

I can't say either way, but they mention the average person saves even more than they do (90% vs the 60% Amazon saw). This was due to their Oracle license being much cheaper than normal Oracle customers. So if you extrapolate, even if they did get some discount being Amazon, the discount they were getting on Oracle probably makes the savings comparable to if they weren't getting large discounts on each side (regular customers of Amazon/Oracle).

AWS has a bunch of services that are HIPAA-compliant: https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/hipaa-eligible-services-re...

You'd likely need to look at the local tax laws to state that they aren't getting similar incentives. I'm not in NYC, but I can speak to where I live and many of the laws, obligations and even taxes that apply to an Amazon-size corporation, do not apply to a mom & pop. For example, food labeling/testing is required (not cheap) for larger corporations. Healthcare options and covered sick days is tied to size of your corporation (again, not cheap). There are also numerous loans and incentives for smaller corporations that the bigger companies aren't eligible for.

I'm not trying to paint this as being equal, but to call it evil is a gross mischaracterization of what is happening here.

I've always found working with your team in one location is far easier than when it is split across time zones (or even physical locations in the same time zone). That said, Amazon does hire overseas, a lot: https://www.amazon.jobs/locations/?&continent=all&cache.

But Amazon does have offices in India...many of them: https://www.amazon.jobs/locations/?&continent=asia_pacific&c...

I don't know about this argument though. If Amazon bans a book based on their ethics, people freak out about censorship and how one company has so much power and shouldn't be doing that. If their AUP stated what they deemed ethical, how many potential startups or corporations wouldn't be able to start? Take a "simple" example: A business that counsels families on abortion. Is that ethical? Who gets to decide that? I think this is one of those cases where we have to be very careful what we are asking for.

It might benefit you to look at a 3rd phone. Because my top notification bar is always full. So no, they are not clearly wrong. Or better yet, maybe it just comes down to individual preference!? I personally never thought I'd see someone trying to justify the loss of screen space as a "win". But here we are. And also, the market is still out on it. Until the majority of phones are doing a notch, the market hasn't spoken. Apple hasn't been the leader in smartphone sales in many years now. They aren't even #2 anymore.

I believe the customization/custom rules being touted is exactly what the commenter was complaining about; each person creating their own custom rules and then getting upset when others don't do the same. Honoring the spirit of Go, this is not.

They do in locations such as California.

Based on the same type of anecdotal evidence, I have the complete opposite view. I've not met anyone that has enjoyed their time at Microsoft. They all talk about the awful work situation, terrible management practices and the backstabbing politics to the point you can't trust your own co-workers.

With all that said, the reality is that you can't take a single brush and paint companies that have so many employees with it. The experience varies very widely on which part of the company they are in.

I'm sure parts of Microsoft are wonderful to work at. Just like I'm sure parts of Amazon are wonderful to work at (they have numerous awards as well indicating this: #1 by LinkedIn this year, for example). I wish we'd stop taking articles that point out the experiences of a couple people to mean that is the situation at the company. Report the full story, not click-bait articles.

Amazon does not commingle their inventory. You appear to be confusing 3p sellers and "fulfilled by amazon" with "sold by Amazon".

Bunch of the teams I've worked with over the years have had "formal fridays". I can confirm it was a fun tradition.

It depends on what we feel is beneficial to society. Is financial return the only thing we should care about? I'm not a philosopher/artist, etc, but I feel they are important to society, regardless of whether they generate financial gain. We should be providing as many opportunities as possible, not putting financial barriers on education.

These are the similar arguments that went on in the late 1800's and well into the 1900's. Society (at that time) determined it was not beneficial or better to simply do job-specific training. So they opened up secondary education to everyone, for free. I'm happy they did and feel it was great for society, despite the cost. I'd like to believe we've progressed enough as a society to open the next levels of education to everyone as well.

It doesn't mean it is right for everyone, but the individual should be able to choose. They shouldn't be barred because they don't have money or the right activities on their transcript.

So by keeping out the "unqualified" we continue to increase the gap between the haves and the have nots? I'm not suggesting that is your intention behind the statement, but that is the harsh reality of what will happen. A policy like this will continue to discriminate against the poor and those stuck in areas without access to decent primary/secondary education (inner-city comes to mind).

Despite the numerous issues with the american primary/secondary education system, I'd imagine you'd struggle to find many arguing that making secondary education free to everyone (qualified or not) wasn't a net benefit for the US.

It is my personal feeling that the entrance exams that used to exist as a barrier to secondary education were awful and unfair. Everyone should have a right to choose their direction, instead of being told you have to start a job/family. Based on the success of eliminating that barrier, I feel opening up university/college to everyone should be the goal of any civilized society.

I'm a bit skeptical that this will have a real impact. It may stop employers from asking, but it does not stop them from low-balling someone based on race/gender, etc. HR departments calculate this in to their offers already.

Don't get me wrong, I think this will help some folks and is a great step forward. People who know their value and what the employer pays will surely benefit (or great negotiators). But for the people this is touted to help, they can still very easily be kept in the lower-end of the pay scale.

It seems to me that the only way to close the pay gap is to have employers release what they pay. That in itself is a tough thing to write legislation for. In my mind, it would need to take into account experience, actual role/leveling, etc. A lot of it is subjective and easy to manipulate to help the employer. And of course, if we just release a straight list of all employees' salaries (with the details needed to calculate where you fall), you may run into privacy concerns.

Everyone entering the store has to be scanned in. A parent could bring a child in, but they are scanned in on the parent's account. Similar to how at some offices, visitors are scanned in using the employee's badge. At least, that is my understanding of how it works.