Do you really think that someone passionate about work is indistinguishable from someone "faking it" after 40 years? I can't imagine doing what I would consider a mundane task for even 5 years straight at regular work hours. 20+ years and I think you would be able to distinguish someone who's doing it for the money and someone who's passionate about the task.
Well, I didn't explicitly take the time scale into account. Or rather, it was like I assumed it was arbitrarily small. But I wouldn't exclude possibility that someone would try to hammer through his own head that he enjoys a job which he loathes through forty years. Sometimes humans can be strange like that.
Just imagine that the job becomes like a surrogate to the persons' actual identity. They identify with their own job and think it makes their lives meaningful even though they might intensely dislike it. For instance, the people I've met who work in medicine who were very much like that - one of my best friends went through med school. Where I live doctors often work long hours besides having extremely stressful jobs (and so take self-comforting addictions like smoking, caffeine abuse and drinking). It seems as if they're often led into the profession by rather unlofty motives like pay or prestige, but I also know that many give some inherent value to their work because they're helping people. Would they'd be better off in another job? I know it's not up to me to tell, I feel as if many would. Specially the ones very much sensitive about patient loss. Because it's a hard thing to deal with anyway, but it hits them the most.
So yeah, I think that someone might stay in a profession he might not actually personally like for some arbitrarily long periods of time. At least in principle. Don't know how it might apply to other professions though, because I don't see why people would keep programming for ethical reasons - unless they're deathly afraid of the coming machine revolution.
20+ years and someone who started out faking it would have begun to actually care. After 40 years, they would be much less distinguishable than after 5.
> one of the most insanely hostile work environments in living memory
> encouraged at all levels of the company
Do you have any sources for this? There have been a few blog posts and some independent investigations to my knowledge but nothing to suggest it is/was "one of the most insanely hostile work environments"--especially worldwide.
I really don't like how racism comes up so often in these situations when I think the closer term is probably familiarity or customs. A lot of bosses like to work with people that have a similar mindset and work ethic that they do. It makes sense that if you've been born and raised in country X and worked there for 15 years and become a boss you will probably prefer people with work ethics similar to your own. In Japan, as a foreigner working for a Japanese company, I can see how Japanese would much prefer to hire a Japanese over me (they don't outwardly complain about long, unpaid overtime, they do mundane tasks that aren't productive, they don't talk back when erroneously attacked). And I can see an American boss much preferring an American who's more likely to bring up points that they think are wrong. I apologize for the stereotyping but meant it as an example.
Your definition of "familiarity" is what Americans would call racism. Obviously people are more familiar/prefer to work with other people like themselves. In America, you don't get to act on those preferences to the extent those preferences fall along race/gender/national origin lines. Socially, it's merely discouraged, but in the workplace it's illegal.
> I really don't like how racism comes up so often in these situations when I think the closer term is probably familiarity or customs
As a rule, 90% of what people call "racism" in the US today is closer to xenophobia.
Likewise, 75% of what they call "racist police" is fundamentally a failure of the justice system as a system to restrain, discipline, or be responsible for its own career employees (police, prosecutors, and even judges), let alone properly incentivise them.
It's really unfortunate how that is the case in the US particularly. I moved to Japan and was shocked at how the service is in Japan compared to the states (particularly restaurants). All the employees work hard to please customers because that's what they're paid to do (and often less than the SF bay area where I'm from). Going back to the US I can feel waiters/waitresses trying to please me to get higher tips or just essentially pretend I don't exist if they think I won't tip well. This arose once when I was playing poker in a casino and only one of the 3 people who ordered drinks tipped. The lady never came back (45 minutes) after that and when the player asked in an agitated voice he was kicked out of the game.
The reason that Japan and the US act differently is not due to tips but due to culture. In the US if there's some kind of issue that person will likely complain but unless it's egregious they probably will return to wherever it happened. In Japan, however, generally one mistake costs the business that customer forever without the customer complaining directly about it. Additionally, remember that it's not the employee's fault that there are tips, it's the employers and the US society that expects it (consider restaurants that removed tips often bring them back) and the employee is just working within that construct.
> they haven't figured out how to do well in moderating live chats with thousands of people
This is surely the case. Blizzard has tried various moderation techniques as you have mentioned and they don't seem to work. If I watch streams on twitch I don't look at chat ever (mobile/tablet).
Yeah I've made it a habit to never share or click any facebook stories anymore (anything that links to another site). If something interests me, I open up firefox with noscript and search for the site on google to find it. Not sure it's any better but I don't want FB to start spamming me with even more 'related' articles/sites.
At either of the airports you can buy a sim card to use in your phone for internet (and use google voice for outgoing calls). They are sold at convenient stores (only the tourist ones like at the airport) and the electronic shops (the temporary sim cards are only sold at the tourist ones). Haneda airport has a bic camera mini.
In Japan you can buy it at the convenient stores and the "mini" electronic store (haneda) at the airports. Switching sims, setting up the APNs, and the NO REFUND AFTER OPENED on the sticker make people buy it and jump on the bus or train to downtown tokyo (where you have 45mins ~ 1.5 hours to burn anyways).
Yeah, even if you buy a prepaid sim and it doesn't work on your device the store probably won't refund you (unless it's "cracked" or something when you open it).
I didn't read anything that implies the games could be shared or uploaded online so a profanity filter wouldn't be needed would it?
I also imagine there to be a touch-screen interface for placing objects on the screen (like unity or playcanvas) so naughty kids will be able to "draw" whatever their heart desires anyways.
> you'll have normal merchandise commingled on shelves side-by-side with third party supplied garbage
I don't think this is fair or even reasonable to say. It's going to be in a B&M store. You can inspect the item. The FDA/whatever organization will be inspecting food on the shelves. As for reputation, Amazon has the best customer service (tied with companies like REI) in my opinion.
I mostly agree that I don't see any positives for the customers at this point, but I don't think it's going the way of 3rd party counterfeit goods.
As for reputation, Amazon has the best customer service (tied with companies like REI) in my opinion.
Sorry, I very very strongly disagree. I buy very little from them any more because I don't trust the provenance.
The saying is that a fish rots from the head down. Bezos and Amazon have proven time and time again that they don't really give a fuck about quality. Their one and only goal for the last 23 years has been to increase revenue, no matter the cost.
Here's this gem: Amazon's Chinese counterfeit problem is getting worse[1]. Here's some choice quotes from that article that illustrate exactly what I'm saying:
Always a problem, the counterfeiting issue has exploded this year, sellers say, following Amazon's effort to openly court Chinese manufacturers, weaving them intimately into the company's expansive logistics operation.
To unsuspecting consumers, fake products can appear legitimate because of the Fulfillment by Amazon program, which lets manufacturers send their goods to Amazon's fulfillment centers and hand over a bigger commission, gaining the stamp of approval that comes with an FBA tag.
Furthermore, Amazon's commingled inventory option bundles together products from different sellers, meaning that a counterfeit jacket could be sent to an Amazon facility by one merchant and actually sold by another.
It's almost inevitable that the Amazon corporate culture that has allowed crap like that to get worse and worse over the years will eventually take over Whole Foods.
Why are you tying customer service to quality of goods? If you don't like their quality of goods that is a fine reason to not buy from them, but I don't see anything in your argument disputing their customer service (the only part you quoted). If you receive a counterfeit item from Amazon (in my experience), they will 100% refund you the money instantly with almost no questions asked. They have also been refunding nexus 5x phones that die out of warranty (bootloop problem).
> Their one and only goal for the last 23 years has been to increase revenue, no matter the cost.
How can that be remotely true? Amazon has spent millions on R&D for the future, not for the current.
What I quoted from you began with "As for reputation". Amazon's reputation cannot be reduced to only customer service, which is what you are highlighting. It's a straw man you have created.
A company can have a good reputation for customer service, while having a bad reputation for other things.
In your example, the way Amazon achieves their customer service reputation is reactionary. If you catch them selling you crap, then they will replace it or refund your money. It's a fool's errand to allow them to play that game with you.
The logical endgame to that business approach is the melamine poisoning in China about a decade ago. "Oops, sorry we sold you milk and infant formula adulterated with melamine. Sorry it killed your child. Here's your instant 100% refund with almost no questions asked".
As for revenue, once again you're creating a straw man. Of course R&D is "for the future" and "not for the current". That's the literal definition. I said revenue, not R&D.
As for my comment about "no matter the cost", let me try to restate it in more detail, perhaps I didn't phrase it well:
Since its inception, Amazon's number one goal has been to grow revenue, from year to year, as quickly as possible. That's their #1 business goal. They have optimized for that revenue goal over other business goals. Revenue over profit. Revenue over quality.
If selling a larger quantity of crap means their overall revenue increases, then that's what they will do. That's what I meant by "no matter the cost". A different way to say that would have been "Amazon Marketplace optimizes for increased revenue at the cost of quality".
Marketplace is an easy way to increase revenue. No need for R&D. Just allow all sorts of counterfeit crap to commingle in existing warehouse, and generate revenue on fulfillment. The more crap you sell, the more you increase your revenue.
The more Amazon increases its revenue, the more the stock market rewards it. Wall Street values Amazon almost exclusively on revenue growth. Bezos has made clear that his #1 goal is revenue, and Wall Street has embraced that metric.
Not coincidentally, supermarkets are very high revenue operations with very low profit margins.
