The terminology used is a bit confusing. Execution model and application architecture are not the same dimension, so it shouldn't be a comparison between 'monolith' vs 'microservices' vs 'serverless'.
The paper seems to use 'microservices' to mean 'containers', but you can make microservices using serverless tech. Heck, you can easily run a monolith on serverless too.
Another example: the paper claims that for microservices (aka containers?), most of the security concerns remain for the app owner to deal with, whereas serverless hands much more of that off to the cloud provider. Not really true. The container-based services on GCP/AWS are almost exactly as compatible with the rest of their offerings as FaaS is. You can front container services with CDN/API gateway auth logic the same as you can for FaaS. In fact, you can do that for durable resources too.
> Closing it would almost certainly be a lot more expensive than meeting union demands, so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that is likely.
Not if Amazon thought swift action would act as a deterrent in other locations. This specific thing has happened with other companies, so I don't think it's unlikely at all.
> Regardless, it's a decent argument for a nationwide union to avoid race to the bottom effects.
OK, but the question is whether these specific workers could possibly have any reason to vote against unionization. Maybe they don't find it plausible that a nationwide union will form, or maybe they don't want to deal with the interim turmoil that will befall them personally, even if they would support a nationwide effort. All seem like perfectly fine reasons to me.
"We can't win, they'll just crush us" is 1. wrong on the facts more often than people think and 2. even when true, a good argument for organizing more effectively, not giving up and accepting the shitty status quo forever.
Yeah, how is this relevant to the thread? It's not about why you think we should have unions. It's about the claim that there's no possible rational reason for these workers to vote against the union.
It's not reasonable to assume the hypothetical retaliation you mentioned is likely because there's no evidence that it is. It's certainly understandable why someone would fall for that argument, because it is persuasive on an emotional level, but it's not a good argument in the same way that logical fallacies can often be persuasive even though they shouldn't be.
Walmart is famous for doing exactly that. I'm not sure what else I can tell you if you (a) claim that a certain outcome never happens, when a cursory search shows it does, and (b) actually think that your political opinions are the result of some kind of pure logic chain. They're not.
It's not a 'logical fallacy' to not want to risk disruption of your livelihood, and that's the only relevant question to this thread: is there any set of facts that would reasonably lead the workers to vote against unionization? I think clearly there is, and there's no point arguing over subjective prioritizations. The workers are not 'irrational' for prioritizing their own jobs over the 'national action' that you seem to want. They may even consider that harmful. Not all workers have the same political opinions.
Well to be clear, I would agree with you if I agreed that closing up shop was actually likely. If we assume that just the very act of forming a union, regardless of its demands, would inevitably lead to closing up shop, then of course I agree that forming the union is counterproductive. Where we disagree is on whether or not that hypothetical is very likely.
Women weren't turned away, they did the turning away. I don't see what was misrepresented. The person you're chastising seems to have edited the quote to ensure we know they're replying to one specific part of it. After all, if they had left the part about women turning away, it might seem like they were asking "what's wrong" with the women.
I think it's way easier to stay aligned when you see each other in person at least sometimes. Maybe it's possible with remote but it seems like a big effort then to orchestrate what comes naturally when everyone is in the same physical space.
Plus 50% of people appear to hate the forced team building Zoom social events that get dreamed up to (poorly) address these issues. Me too.
Well I think both are intertwined. It's a lot easier to get everyone pulling in the same direction with the help of social bonding.
Partly what I see in remote work is a deterioration of good faith assumptions. E.g. two people on different teams, who would normally see each other and chat in a small office, end up never really interacting when we're remote (just because they don't happen to have meetings together, say). If Person A then does something that affects the work of Person B, I find that Person B is more likely to interpret this action negatively or as being detrimental to the overall company goals if they don't have regular social interaction with Person A.
Eh, you're posting on HN in fluent English. Your personal friend group is probably nothing close to what's average in China. It's a straightforward sampling bias.
Did you go to a Western university? A good one? And now work at some Western company? You can add atypical points for all of those.
Most of the Chinese people I know are fine in terms of education, around the same as any other demographic. But most of them I know from a top European university, or from highly skilled work in China. Most of China is not like that at all.
I'm currently working in the bay area but I got my master degree in China and never attended any colleges in the west.
I was born in a city ranked 45th in China by population (from wikipedia). K-12 is 100%. My grandpa lives in a very small village with annual income just a few thousand dollars, K-12 is also 100%. My close cousins come from the same small village, now bank staffs and doctors.
I have friends who's family so poor that the roof got torn away by a typhoon. And I have friends whose parents are simply peasants.
My friend group is definitely biased since I graduated from one of the top universities, but they are selected by exams, so many families are actually not wealthy. In China money usually cannot help you directly on exams, people need to study hard.
Hmm, another thing I'm curious is that what gives the original post the impression that "Chinese people are uneducated". That's a rare heard haha.
Maybe? Another possible explanation is that some people try to correlate income in USD to education levels.
It's not a direct comparison since the cost for education is also cheaper in China. Also since K-12 is almost free (at least meals are not included 20 years ago when I was a kid), parents just send kids there.
In recent years the trend is that even assembly factories require high school education, bachelor preferred... That's another interesting topic though.
The top 45 cities are what, 200 million people? So 85% of Chinese people live somewhere more rural than where you grew up, and in China that's correlated with poverty and all sorts of negative things.
This is exactly what I mean; the relatively advantaged Chinese are under the impression that they are the average. They're not at all. The average Chinese person lives no place they're likely to escape for the Bay Area. Most people can't even escape to a normal life in a tier 1 city within China.
Rural China is the opposite of many rural places in the West. In the West, there are small towns seen as desirable, where you go to live when you're richer and have kids or just want more space. In China rural is almost always poorer.
I don't think K-12 attainment is an appropriate metric. Like I said elsewhere it's like comparing hygiene standards by saying we all have access to soap. But that's the most basic standard we can achieve.
I think if you compare the % of Chinese who go to world-class universities, it's a lot more relevant. China has maybe 2 or 3 such universities, so saying it's equal and fair because you have the gaokao or whatever doesn't make much sense. The biggest intake for world class universities is rich Chinese kids going to the West, not poor kids from the village going to Tsinghua. If you managed to do that then great for you, really, but it's not an average story.
Even if we don't want to go that high-end, tertiary educational attainment at any calibre of university in China is much much lower than in the US.
I think there are good things about the Chinese approach to education, but it's kind of silly to say they've caught up to the US and others.
> I think it's pretty significant that they are able to run a country with that demographics most of whom were not even educated.
and then eventually switch to
> I don't think K-12 attainment is an appropriate metric. Like I said elsewhere it's like comparing hygiene standards by saying we all have access to soap. But that's the most basic standard we can achieve
> I think if you compare the % of Chinese who go to world-class universities, it's a lot more relevant
This seems like a major shift in goal-posts. If your concept of "uneducated" means not going to a world-class university, then most of the world, including most people in the US are "uneducated".
Whether they're form China seems pretty irrelevant. You could very well make the opposite case that people from China know even less about its actual KPIs.
It's trivial to pick a relevant metric and look up the median value for China. A quarter of the people there live on less than $5/day. They're not swanning off to do a Masters at MIT any time soon. They're not even able to move to the better cities within China, for the most part.
This person is a total anomaly. Taking them as representative is quite ridiculous and rather insulting to the hundreds of millions "with a K-12 education" that somehow are still living in abject poverty with no opportunities. It's an arbitrary and meaningless claim to make. It's like saying China and America have the same hygiene standards because most people in both places have access to soap.
I would say K-12 education and unemployment are different issues here, do you agree with that? For the latter that's another story and I agree it's more complicated.
Sure, I'm really saying that it's fine to be K-12 educated but it doesn't seem to be translating into further educational opportunities for most people. They often don't go from K-12 to university, rather they go into some not great job and never get such opportunities. Same happens in the West of course, just to a lesser degree.
That doesn't change the fact that all tests and statistics shows Chinese students are better educated than American counterparts. Since more Chinese are in poorer schools those numbers are loop sided against Chinese students which make it even worse.
But that you think you both know better than a Chinese person and didn't even bother to put in some links to facts (unlike those liked that disagree, like the Pisa test) says enough.
The PISA scores are not for “China”. They’re for a tiny percentage of China’s population, living in the wealthiest districts, with the most sought after 户口.
The gathered statistics are in no way comparable to Western countries which gather scores from all districts, rich and poor alike.
Since Americans started leaving schools without knowledge of basic English skills. We were talking about English skills, not how top universities fare in tests.
If I can make one suggestion: make clicking any part of the Tweet card element go to the Tweet in context. That's the main action I will want to take, so it's a little annoying that it's relegated to one small link in the top right.
Yup, It's one simple lambda function that reads the JSON file from S3, searches twitter for new tweets since the latest, appends new ones and writes back to S3. Cron'd every minute.
The paper seems to use 'microservices' to mean 'containers', but you can make microservices using serverless tech. Heck, you can easily run a monolith on serverless too.
Another example: the paper claims that for microservices (aka containers?), most of the security concerns remain for the app owner to deal with, whereas serverless hands much more of that off to the cloud provider. Not really true. The container-based services on GCP/AWS are almost exactly as compatible with the rest of their offerings as FaaS is. You can front container services with CDN/API gateway auth logic the same as you can for FaaS. In fact, you can do that for durable resources too.