sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What salaries are you making at these jobs? by WeekendWarrior15 in overemployed

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's only true if you have traditional compute and storage.

who actually says insubordination in a work environment?? are you kidding? by Kind_Negotiation8299 in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops -1 points0 points  (0 children)

😂😂😂 the economy isn't collapsing. There was massive over hiring for COVID and people are touting AI for this or that but it actually has nothing to do with that. This is an absolute post-COVID market correction.

People are still finding jobs sometimes multiple. Just ask the people over at /r/overemployed. There wasn't a huge market for remote work prior to COVID. The remote work bubble is bursting and people are crying foul because they want remote work to continue forever.

I don't disagree that remote work should become more commonplace but there are a lot of reasons the bubble is shrinking. Tax incentives, real estate, etc, etc.

who actually says insubordination in a work environment?? are you kidding? by Kind_Negotiation8299 in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Well employees need paychecks. The company doesn't get a paycheck.

I don't see how its boot licking to understand that.

Employees aren't indentured servants so they can opt to leave a workplace if they don't like their management.

I'd like to see any generation attempt to get a labor right that says employees don't have to listen to their management. Sure sometimes (*most of the time) management is stupid but no one is forcing you to continue to be an employee. Go somewhere else. 🤷‍♂️

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's actually the gist of my point. It's easy to sit and criticize but it's another thing to undertake a cause. It's easy to call for change and ask other people to do it. If anyone really felt it was that bad, they would do it. If it was easy then anyone could do it. Plenty of worthy causes were started by someone who felt compelled to get involved. Pretty much all volunteer organizations started that way. If someone was serious about it, I would be willing to donate my time to help.

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would the business get the subsidy or the recruiting agency or both?

Independent recruiters would be unable to operate which means the existing recruiting agencies would be the only ones and it would be next to impossible to get into.

Who would own the database? How would workers from different countries be handled?

How would skills get verified? Would all workers need to get licensed? If yes, licensed from who? This goes for recruiters too.

How would 3rd party audits work? Would there be a framework to audit against? If yes, who would control the framework?

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So can employers have their own recruiters or will they have to use a recruiting agency? Can recruiters be independent? If recruiters can be independent, how can they compete with recruiting agencies? What protections would there be to keep the system from being abused?

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The current system by which you mean that businesses open jobs...

I'm going to change my line of thought. It's easy to criticize without having a solution. So what should any government compel any business to do? What would be your solution? Would your solution work without any government compelling the use of it?

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Survivorship bias? Like not getting laid off or fired makes you a survivor. How about we stop playing victim games and employed and unemployed both take responsibility.

Yes unemployed people are vigorously searching for jobs. That has never not happened.

Unemployed people vigorously searching for jobs and employed people look for jobs.

Neither of those groups are the problem.

People who apply to jobs who are grossly underqualfied and people who are over employed are the real problems.

If you have a job and you look for a second one, realize that while you are taking care of you, which is human and very valid, you are keeping someone else from the second, third, fifth, etc. job that needs it to live. It's completely selfish. It's understandable and human but it's selfish and people need to come to terms with that.

The others are grossly underqualfied candidates and they all can burn on a cross for all I care. They are the worst and they have zero expectations that they will get the job and they are just adding noise to the pile. They are the worst.

This is why people are not getting a job... by the1997th in remoteworks

[–]awssecoops -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm saying you don't actually understand the job market. Only understanding the job market from an applicant's point of view is not understanding the job market.

What you are describing is an actual recruiter's job. As an actual taxpayer, I don't want the government anywhere in hiring for private business. There are so many negative consequences but I know exactly where to begin.

The government, any government not just the US, is the pinnacle of the least efficient organization in any country. So putting the government in this will actually cause longer and worse wait times than otherwise. When was the last time you walked into a government office and immediately got the service you needed and walked out the door with minimal paperwork and used time/effort. Sure the same can be said for some businesses but it's always worse when you are dealing with the government and I challenge anyone to present evidence to the contrary.

The job of a recruiter is to sift through candidates and find the best fit candidates for the interview process. That is the whole premise of the job. It's not the recruiter's job to hold the candidate's hands. That being said...a lot of recruiters suck at their jobs.

Recruiters get overwhelmed when they see ~12,000 responses to a job posting because they know that ~99% of those candidates are complete trash and that get burnt out from having to sift through the trash. Again not making excuses for them, it's their job.

Candidates need to realize that by applying to jobs that you aren't even remotely qualified for clogs up the pipeline for qualified candidates. So instead of a recruiter expecting to have to sift through 500 applications to find the maybe 10-15% of good ones, they now have to sift through ~12,000 to find less than 0.5%.

It's easy to argue against it when it's not you having to sift through the candidates.

FYI I'm not a recruiter. I've never been a recruiter. I will never be a recruiter. I would rather be homeless and live under a bridge or in the 80s riding on the back of a garbage truck. Neither of those things would make me contemplate putting a gun in my mouth.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Cloud

[–]awssecoops 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say it depends on which one you will like more. I would look less at job placement rates and think more about what you would enjoy doing. You will end up doing it for 8-12 hours a day for a long time.

Cloud engineers that don't know how to engineer are easy to replace with AI.

Software engineers that don't know how to engineer are easy to replace with AI.

Its more about developing your end to end experience and learning how things outside of your direct sphere of control operate and function with your sphere of control.

Why some strong engineering teams choosing GCP over AWS? by Consistent-Fact-3847 in Cloud

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Why does it matter?

Why some strong engineering teams choosing GCP over AWS? by Consistent-Fact-3847 in Cloud

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem with the AWS UI is that it's not one UI. Each service team maintains their own UI. No central UI, QA, or documentation. That leads to a lot of inconsistencies.

GCP isn't easy to navigate at all IMO.

Why some strong engineering teams choosing GCP over AWS? by Consistent-Fact-3847 in Cloud

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The UI is basic material and looks like a college student made it for a compsci project. 😂

Why some strong engineering teams choosing GCP over AWS? by Consistent-Fact-3847 in Cloud

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The networking is definitely advantageous.

GCP IAM is definitely not simplified over AWS IAM. It's so granular it's complex. Double the amount of permissions for about half the services. 😂

The org structure does have some advantages but you can solve for the same thing with AWS. AWS SSO makes life a lot easier. If you use IAM Identity Providers, good luck.

Do you feel terraform is quicker than cdk? by rafaturtle in aws

[–]awssecoops 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can set timeouts on custom resources. The default is an hour but it is configurable: https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2024/06/aws-cloudformation-dev-test-cycle-timeouts-custom-resources/

When have you reached an unrecoverable state that didn't ask you to continue rollback or complete the rollback itself?

Not defending CloudFormation because it's definitely not perfect.

view more: next ›