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.
You can be invested in your work, in your professionalism, and in the people you get to know. All of those things are very different from being emotionally invested in the company itself.
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 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.
You might not have a right to them, but those procedures exist, and citizens would like to avail themselves of those procedures. They could even do so, except for the state's intervention: and that intervention thus deprives the citizen of "life, liberty".
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 left it out, as I didn't find it relevant to respond to that particular comment.
A simple drafting of a law is not the whole of "due process"; the very Roe v. Wade encapsulates that. (Of course, now overturned.)
But also, take the cases of forcing a women to have a child she did not have a say in (rape) or which will kill her (e.g., ectopic pregnancy). These seem pretty close to bill-of-attainder type situations, but also, due process.
I'd also argue you need to overcome the equal protection clause; bodily autonomy seems to me like a right that we generally honor — we do not force organ or blood donations upon people — yet, here, we strip that right from one sex in particular?
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.
Did you read the amendment? There doesn't need to be explicit protection for medical procedures or abortion. 14A protects people from being deprived of life and liberty by state action or legislation. Eliminating access to abortion can deprive someone of their life and / or liberty, so eliminating access to abortion contradicts 14A.
> 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.
> Any state law that deprives someone of life and / or liberty is unconstitutional.
It's not. It's literally not. Stealing food is illegal, even if you were going to die of starvation without it. Breaking into someone's home is illegal, even if you were going to freeze to death outside. And now, in some states, abortion is illegal, even if you were going to die from giving birth.
States or congress should pass a law allowing abortions if that's the will of the people. The court should not invent a law out of nothing; this ruling is legally correct.
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.
"Where in our constitution and laws are these things codified as rights?"
Um, how about Roe v Wade and the TEN times the Supreme Court upheld RvW since it was decided, including as recently as 2016? The court just blew up precedent with a ten ton nuke and you're arguing hey, it was just good jurisprudence!
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?
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.
"The court does not invent rights, nor should it."
It has established many specific rights that are not articulated in the Constitution or codified in laws. Most still stand.
"Separate but equal was precedent for a long time as well, would you be arguing the same for that?"
I'm confused, how many vulnerable women died as a result of that?
> 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.
"They also should not care about what the impact would be downstream of their decisions; their reasoning should stand on its own."
Do we live in the same reality? As the dissenting justices stated, "The majority's refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision."
Judges are not law-interpreting robots and no one ever pretended they are supposed to be (until you I guess). Their decisions impact the health and welfare of hundreds of millions of human beings and to not incorporate that reality into their work would be monstrously inhumane. There is a long history of rulings directly referencing the impact of decisions, to argue otherwise is a lie or disingenuous.
None of your analogies are applicable. Somebody dying because their personal circumstances made receiving medical care difficult or impossible, is patently different than dying because someone else was allowed to deny them medical care by imposing their personal religious beliefs.
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.
Pregnancy does not, in and of itself, prevent access to medical care. So while it is a personal circumstance, it is entirely inapplicable within the context of care being intentionally prevented.
> 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.
Not analogous, at all. That's a medical professional making a single medical decision based on medical information. That surgeon is not preventing the patient from finding another surgeon who will perform the procedure. Whereas what you're suggesting, is that freedom of religion should give politicians the right to make a singular blanket medical decision on behalf of everyone in their state, present and future, without any situational knowledge or medical reasoning.
It's not a constitutional right to abortion. It's a constitutional right to not have personal liberties stripped by the states which are enumerated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and right to privacy are all enumerably applicable to preserving this liberty. The ability for anyone to impose their personal religious beliefs on a population violates all of those rights.
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.
> I don’t know why you keep bringing up religion, I have not mentioned it at all.
The only objection anyone has to abortion is based on religious beliefs. So, you didn't need to mention it. It's the foundation of the entire issue -- that religious beliefs can be imposed on a population as law. Saying that it's irrelevant to the discussion betrays an ignorance of the subject at hand.
> None of these rights apply to abortion. If anything, there should be an enumerated right to bodily autonomy.
The enumeration does not need to specifically reference the word to be applicable. For a different example, the 4th amendment doesn't contain any verbiage about police officers opening a trunk during a traffic stop, but the declaration that they must have probable cause still applies. In the exact same way, to assert religious beliefs that affect someone else's medical care violates all of the rights I listed.
> 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.
> 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.
That's the entire point! You're not objecting to abortion. You're objecting at some point in time and only when it's medically unjustifiable. But those moral thresholds are different for every individual and there are medically justifiable situations, which is exactly why no individual should be able to impose their personal beliefs as a law which declares those medical situations as unjustifiable.
You're welcome to have moral objections and believe they are the most correct or reasonable, but they have no bearing on the concerted efforts of religious groups and individuals to outright ban access to medical care. And that's the discussion at hand, which you keep conveniently ignoring. Many people have total opposition to all abortions in all situations and specifically for religious reasons, which is what actual, real-life politicians are implementing as we speak.
Someone else having an abortion (whether you believe it's murder or not) doesn't infringe on your rights. But you imposing your beliefs in a way that affects someone else's medical care is absolutely infringing on their rights. These are fundamental concepts of our democracy.
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.
> 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.
Your moral compass isn't accounting for the logistics of pregnancy. At any point during a pregnancy or childbirth, complications can arise which risk the mother's life, and a medical decision is most often made to save her instead of a potentially healthy child. By both medical and legal definition, this is still an abortion. To declare that it's not ethical to abort in these situations is a declaration that it is ethical to kill the mother. So, we very much do not agree that the ethics of abortion are obvious or even quantifiable.
> 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.
I think you missed the point here, or I wasn't clear enough. Given that the spectrum of ethics doesn't allow for a standard threshold of "murder" and we've already established that abortions are a medical necessity, the only case against the right to abortion boils down to being personally offended by someone else's actions. If medical care can be decided by personal offense and codified into a law that is guaranteed to be harmful, then we don't actually have the freedoms described in the Constitution.
> Yes, but we are in disagreement on which rights are applicable in this case. [...] 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.
Freedom of speech protects the moral threshold discussed earlier. Right to privacy protects medical information. Freedom of religion is based on separation of church and state, which means religious beliefs shouldn't hold any bearing at the federal level, particularly because they may directly contradict the beliefs of another religion. These are all fundamental concepts of our democracy, and it is absolutely the court's job to uphold them when challenged.
And the case law does exist (it's the one which just got overturned), so even if you were correct about the court's responsibility, then they just did the opposite of what you're purporting that responsibility to be.
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.
The thing is, if you treat all the russian people as enemies, than they will in fact all become your enemies. If some oligarchs were (secretly) opposing Putin before - then this is the way to bind them to Putin.
"It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor"
And this would be, how justice is supposed to work. Apply the same rules to every actor.
Otherwise it is not justice and you loose every credibility, when you claim to wage wars in the name of "justice". It becomes just a meaningless word and you no different from the bad guys.
"and celebrate our allies"
So hooray to the great rulers of Saudi Arabia and co. May they live long and prosper, bomb the shit out of their enemies in Yemen(370000+ deaths so far) and stone their own women to death, if they dare to speak up and disobey.
Let's be extremely clear: Russian people are not the enemy. Very few people here in Europe think this, and those who do are mostly the xenophobic assholes who enjoy thinking anyone who isn't them is the enemy anyway.
Oligarchs are Putin's keys to power. Sanctioning them is a way to hurt Putin's power and influence, which has a chance to bring the war to an end. Not sanctioning them because "oh there's a chance maybe one of them actually doesn't like the guy" is an idiotic move.
"Not sanctioning them because "oh there's a chance maybe one of them actually doesn't like the guy" is an idiotic move. "
Given recent russian history of fights between Putin and various oligarchs - I rather think it would be a idiotic move to target them all without due process - because the chances are actually quite high, that many of them oppose Putin.
We're not imprisoning them, we're freezing their riches. This gets more of them to oppose Putin. And several are now having to come out publicly speaking against him.
This is how we're helping a coup d'état happen. It's a good and solid strategy. A lot is riding on this.
"We're not imprisoning them, we're freezing their riches"
Ok, I would be somewhat fine with it, if it is only "freezing". But still not without some form of process, that shows links of them to the government, or support/benefit of the war. Because otherwise this sets a (further) dangerous precedent. There was something called, "rule of the law".
Pray tell, where is the rule of the law not being respected? Call out specific examples if this is where your problem with this lies.
But need I remind you, we are at war, with an enemy committing war crimes every day and absolutely not respecting any "rule of the law". When you're up against fair adversaries, it's right to call for a fair fight. When you're up against somebody who's getting dangerously close to getting us into a nuclear war, it's ok to take some damn shortcuts.
Fat good the "long term consequences" of not having followed proper procedures will do us if half of Europe is irradiated. As we say in France, "there are largers cats to whip". I don't care, I live in Brussels, well within the blast zone.
Erm, no we are not. Russia is at war with the ukraine, but not with the EU, nor the USA. So maybe do not escalate?
"where is the rule of the law not being respected"
Where is it? It is not the case btw. that there is a title called "oligarchs". What all of this means in its current shape, is targeting simply rich russian people. Now sure, chances are quite high, that they got to their wealth through crime, but law does not usually operate on cliches.
"with an enemy committing war crimes every day"
And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen for example since 2014 with no one giving a shit about it.
Yes, we are. Like I said upthread, we're sending aid and weapons en masse into Ukraine. Putin has put us on a shit-list of countries, and even called the sanctions a declaration of war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60633482
It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation. It's also being fought online, over social networks, with Russians actively spreading propaganda on our media and networks.
I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet. But as far as Russia is concerned, it's not even official in Ukraine, so "official definitions" don't matter.
> And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen
I know, I know, only good propaganda supporting your cause is allowed here by your opinion.
But can you please explain to me, why a ukrainian child is worth more, than a child in yemen? Because they are also dying right now, too and in greater numbers. Caused by "our" allies. Not only in the past - but also today.
I think we need to be doing something about both. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.
"It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation."
And yes, with every fanatic statement, chances of escalation are increasing. But have you heard of something called "Mutual assured destruction"? Sowjet Union did probably way worse than russia today, but was not attacked. That's why.
"I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet."
And do you know that you can go there and fight today? Ukraine is welcoming volunteers. But maybe bear in mind, that unlike in CoD, you might actually die there on day one. And it likely won't be heroic. War seldom is, nor black and white, especially not if it is in part a civil war. And you might end up fighting next to actual fascists. Not (only) against them, but with them. Stepan Bandera is considered a National Hero there to many. Google him if you are curious. And then about the Regiment Asow. And then about the ukrainian law, that was targeted against the russian language way before the war. Not against russian propaganda, but against the russian language(and people). Putin is a war criminal, belonging to Den Haag - but the ukrainian side are not made up by saints either.
""official definitions" don't matter."
And unlike in your opinion, official definitions actually matter a lot, because the moment russia attacks NATO territory - ALL NATO forces will react. Not before, no matter how great the lust for war, for people beating the drums of war online.
> why a ukrainian child is worth more, than a child in yemen
This is whataboutism, again. I never said such a thing. I'm more involved in the war in Ukraine because I have personal stakes in it.
This thread, HERE, is about Ukraine. You're trying to make it about Yemen. I have a close acquaintance currently dying of cancer, do you see me making this thread about cancer?
> And do you know that you can go there and fight today?
Yes, I'm acutely aware. I almost signed up. I decided not to, because I do not have military training. Since the attacks, I've been taking first aid and firearm training, whatever I have time for. I intend to take combat training later this year. Don't think I'm sitting idle here; the best thing I can do until I'm ready, is fight propaganda.
"This thread, HERE, is about Ukraine. You're trying to make it about Yemen."
No, I am trying to make it about peace. How to resolve conflicts. And I seriously doubt we can really resolve conflicts, if we only solve some conflicts, but profit of others. Because yes - we profit of the war in Yemen. By selling weapons to Saudi Arabia and buying their oil (and in the case of the US also with direct military involvement). As long as we do that(and all the other shit) - how can anyone take us seriously when we say we care for peace and democracy? That's double standards and hypocrisy, which is the fuel for war and conflict.
"the best thing I can do until I'm ready, is fight propaganda."
So you want to fight propaganda? Why not fight the propaganda, that we are the good guys fighting the bad guys. Because this is not true, if we only do it sometimes and ignore the many times we don't.
and the reasons given for adding them to the sanctions list are not "some form of process"? (We can certainly argue if the process is sufficient, but targeted sanctions against named individuals is not the same as just grabbing everything with a russian name on it. And yes, some people are complaining that governments actually insist on proving that things belong to sanctioned people before acting, but "some people are complaining" is not the same as policy and what actually happens)
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 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 incentives leads to dangerous driving, careless handling of packages and unsanitary work conditions that highly likely contribute to higher employee turnover.
Amazon does not pay for the externalities of more dangerous driving in your neighbourhood, other than their subcontractors might increase their prices if their insurance starts getting more expensive. They do not pay [edit: you] for the time and effort when they have to redeliver a broken package.
You change the compensation by setting goals that are actually reachable, and then having the workers iterate together with the employer to find and fix inefficiencies. The antagonism of unreachable goals is bound to lead to public relations issues. This of course assume that you see this article or articles like it as a public relations issue, so if that view is negligible then Amazon will see no harm.
I am so confused by the set of responses based on the idea "Well, lots of other people have awful working conditions, why are we picking on this particular billion dollar corporation?"
Because the discussion is only focused on Amazon. If instead all such articles and complains would be "Amazon, among many other companies, give workers incentives to pee in bottles" then I would pay a lot more attention to it.
Because when you say "<insert-bad-company-of-the-day> does <insert-bad-thing-of-the-day>" which is obviously to me not unique to that company then your message sounds like meant to provoke a certain feeling against a certain company, my "manipulation" alarms start ringing and, as a protection mechanism, I stop believing everything you say. By making at least an effort to make such reporting balanced, fair and accurate you have much higher chance to get me to care.
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.
People did complain about other companies. A decade ago it was Walmart that was the company everyone was talking about how poorly they treated their employees (which they still do in comparison to competitors like Costco). I think the reason why Amazon is getting the focus now is because Bezos went from being merely a very wealthy man to (depending on the stock market) being literally the wealthiest man in the world. So you'd think he could afford a bit of generosity towards his warehouse workers.
I've done it before on a long drive under urgent non-work-related time constraints, and while recovering from a broken leg. It's not the worst thing in the world, although finding a tree or a public toilet is preferable, and it's probably not safe while driving.
If a manager, or set of metrics, prevented bathroom breaks, that's a major contract violation and would be arbitrated successfully by a competent union steward.
Amazon lied about it very publicly. They lied and said they didn't even know about it, and then an avalanche of evidence showing they knew about it was released.
Did they? The tweet I saw was specifically talking about Amazon employees, and last I checked, none of the people driving delivery trucks are in any way employed by Amazon.
My understanding was that someone had made the accusation that this was happening in fulfillment centers, which are employees, and Amazon was officially denying it.
Amazon DSP drivers are hired and managed completely by third party companies.
Because Amazon is a brand upper middle class white collar types interact with. Swift and Schneider are not. Everyone thought they were at least a couple intermediaries removed from the trucker jugs.
Just wait until they discover what construction site porta-johns are like.
> I am of the opinion that all truckers (or people in the delivery profession) pee in bottles to save time, not just Amazon drivers.
What is your opinion based on? A hunch? Random number generator? Your star sign? Maybe your horoscope?
> Why is Amazon being singled out here?
That's a strawman, nobody is singling out this company. Everyone is talking about Amazon because they publicly denied this ever happens from an official account.
> How would you even change the compensation or penalty structure to account for this?
Oh I don't know, maybe... and I realize this idea is so far out there so please bear with me for a second, maybe institute mandatory 15 minute breaks every 2-3 hours into the delivery schedule? Crazy, I know.
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).
My father did local delivery for UPS for 30 years. According to him, this is not something he or anyone he knew did, ever (including the long haulers). UPS is unionized, so maybe that has something to do with it. My uncle worked for USPS for 35 years and he has reported the same. So I don't think you can hold up examples of drivers peeing in bottles and taking meth as the status quo when both UPS and USPS don't drive under these conditions. Fedex I'm not sure about because they are all contractors, so they may be under the same pressures as Amazon. But that's all the more reason for Amazon drivers to unionize. I'm sure your could find some horror stories, but this is a pressure the union works explicitly against and it seems effective.
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:
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:
Indeed. I live close to an interstate in a rural area and the neighbors to a trash pickup every year. We're actually picking up trash on the "frontage road" rather than the interstate, but the two are only 100' apart. I can tell you that truck drivers peeing in bottles then throwing said bottles out the window is very common.
"Amazon forces warehouse workers to pee in bottles" was a thing two years ago. I haven't heard of this being a common thing outside anecdotal accounts, and looking at the amazon employees subreddits it sounded like it was overblown. Amazon responded forcefully to that claim in their tweet, and was subsequently hit with a 'gotcha!' when the drivers were reported to be doing it.
From what I've read, Amazon's warehouses aren't a fun place to work, but not overall different from any other warehouse job. Along the same lines, their delivery jobs aren't remarkably different from other delivery jobs and the drivers peeing in bottles is a thing that happens across the board in the industry.
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.
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.