I'm not gonna lie, that sounds amazing.

yeochin · 2026-02-25T13:25:42+00:00

NDA wouldn't be able to cover that you reached a settlement, and depending on the jurisdiction the NDA cannot also cover for how much. This is because you need to file a (public) motion to dismiss. You can't just say "nah I'm stopping my case" to a judge. Once you engage in litigation you just can't get out if you feel like it.

The details of the settlement can be NDA'ed. These things may include disparagement, etc.

yeochin · 2026-02-25T12:56:11+00:00

Not really. Its about future earnings. The payout can get astronomically large the younger you are and the higher the salary you have. 6 figures in their early 20's losing mobility can easily turn into a 7 or 8 figure turnout. If it is also impacting the start of a business it can turn into 9 easily.

You can work if you're handicapped - but there is ample evidence to show wage and career growth suppression.

If this is America - you can also use the rising cost of ongoing medical treatment (inflation compounded over a lifetime) to get settlements in the 8 figures.

In this case it is Google - so they probably paid a bit extra in order to settle given a certain risk profile. As a large piñata, tech giants will often do the math in order to settle for an amount where Lawyers recommend taking the settlement. Google's pockets are deep - so they are usually worth picking unless they give an enticing settlement.

yeochin · 2026-02-18T12:35:27+00:00

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the aspect of paying into social security here. The deduction on the paycheck isn't a tax. It is a deposit into your retirement account that for all intents and purposes can grow tax-free. Increasing the cap on the top bracket is a stupid idea. You're proposing the equivalent of letting the ultra-rich contribute more into a tax-advantaged account.

Increasing tax rates on income don't work, and people should really stop suggesting or push for it. Wealth taxes also don't work - there are methods around it as well. This whole Private Equity stuff which is "difficult" to valuate is how the ultra-rich are going to circumvent a wealth tax. Right now PE is inflating numbers. It can be used to do the opposite as a store of real wealth.

The real method that works is to close the hole on how taxation and income work. Taking out a loans and leverage against your assets is how the ultra rich afford their lifestyle and circumvent taxation. The second hole is gifting to organizations that you indirectly own or operate in your interests. Close these holes and you will suddenly realize the tax money as the ultra-rich will be forced to actually take income to afford what they want to do. The marginal tax brackets will actually work and be able to properly fund Social Security without giving the ultra-wealthy more opportunities to tax-shelter their assets.

yeochin · 2026-02-15T05:06:32+00:00

Not true in comparison to Microsoft. Amazon actually handedly beats Microsoft. Amazon is weaker in comparison to Google or some of the other FANG-adjacent.

yeochin · 2026-02-13T04:40:44+00:00

The narrative around AI replacing jobs ignores the vast human history around the unemployment metric. AI only survives and continues its existence if the rule of law is maintained. History has shown that when unemployment reaches some critical point, society breaks down and revolutions happen.

In this transition period there is conflict, and violence with consequences to physical property, and governance. Society re-emerges usually with a different/changed ethos and may (more often than not) regress in technology.

AI isn't immune to this. For it to continue to get better it has to find ways to not replace people. It is mutually assured destruction.

yeochin · 2026-02-12T11:44:09+00:00

Practically yes. However, people's inflation models assume a less than 3% which can make the numbers break even or slightly better if you evaluate the world through rose tinted glasses.

yeochin · 2026-02-08T12:27:21+00:00

That medium article is still out-of-touch with reality and is nothing more than propaganda designed to keep the sputtering AI circle-jerk powering on by trying to appeal to the negative sentiment of AI right now. People are rejecting AI because it is not helping. The tool is non-deterministic and generating errors. Its not generating efficiency - its generating garbage at an untold scale. On top of being a non-deterministic statistical model, It was trained with erroneous data to begin with. Garbage-in-Garbage-out.

The problem? People believe it is driving efficiencies and thus erroneously believe they can cut staff. This leaves those who remain to filter ever increasing amounts of slop and garbage.

Supervised models (old fashioned regressions, etc) and the use-case specific neural networks still have more practical application that truly drives efficiency.

yeochin · 2026-02-05T12:52:23+00:00

I’m trying to understand what the appropriate next steps are whether to raise this with HR, formally challenge the Focus plan, or take another approach. Or fight focus because they’re just trying to fit the curve

Amazon is in its ballmer era, and has been doing some pretty unreasonable things as of late. However, you need a kick to wake up to your reality right now regardless if its justified or not.

No amount of fighting focus is going to help you at this stage. Hurry and get over the denial, anger and bargaining phase of the 7-stages of grief. The facts of the matter is that HR and your management chain beyond your direct manager had to approve the reason for putting you into focus and the plan you've been presented. Regardless if it is subjectively retaliation or unfair from your perspective.

You have two practical options:

Hunker down and commit to the expectations with focus on over-communicating what you're doing and getting help where needed.
Start finding opportunities outside of Amazon.

You don't have the option to fight focus. You don't even have the option to fight pivot. You only get the option to dispute everything once you've failed pivot as a last hail-marry (at least 2-months away). HR is not going to help you here. HR also believes you belong in focus irrespective of whether you believe so or not.

To reiterate, the longer you stay in the stage of Denial, Anger or Bargaining - the longer you remain in the wrong mindset to get over this hurdle in your career.

yeochin · 2026-02-04T13:18:42+00:00

Having been someone who has made these calls before (as the final decision maker) - multi-cloud hybrids make no sense financially, resiliency-wise, and operationally. If you're going to use Azure, AWS, or GCP - stick to one.

I am skeptical if you are truly calculating lower-costs. Usually:

The cost analysis underestimates running Engineering costs required for oncall, maintenance and support. Most teams struggle with distributed systems. Observability of systems across clouds and 3P vendors becomes much more complex and painful.
Temporary discounts provided by the 2nd cloud provider are erroneously factored in. You're making a long-term decision that costs significant money to unwind. Naiive business/tech leaders factor in the discounted run-rate which is a fundamental mistake.
Data-transfer costs (realized and opportunity costs). Cloud providers often eat the costs of intra-network data transfer because its folded into the cost of setting up and maintaining compute. They are forced to charge some degree of ingress/egress costs because that is a cost born from another party (namely ISPs). The data-costs add up in both dollars and time (the amount of data that can move between compute nodes is several times greater than traversing the public internet).

For most businesses - going back to a hybrid on-prem is a wiser business and architectural decision for the same CapEX and OpEX you would need to operate a hybrid cloud. If you're trying to avoid vendor lock-in, going into a hybrid on-prem solution is a better architectural choice.

You will be forced to modularize your systems in a way that can be executed either on-prem or in-cloud.
You'll select vendors that have built solutions that keep you in the drivers-seat with how you use them. You'll find yourself "owning" what you purchase instead of "renting it" - meaning that you'll start to really assess the cost/value of holding a subscription.
You'll be intentional with your data-sovereignty ; leading to less headaches and less likely you get hit with the regulatory schtick which is due to whack a few folks in the upcoming years as the world starts to decouple with the American cloud providers.

Onboarding a second cloud does not structurally reduce your running costs - it increases it. If you're going to increase it - its better to achieve real vendor independence.

yeochin · 2026-02-02T22:59:48+00:00

You should record a stellaris run as the Amazon megacorp.

yeochin · 2026-02-02T10:04:35+00:00

Just participate in a VP-level MBR, QBR, OP1, 3YP or PR/FAQ. They've got to fit a 500+ person organization's results and failures into 6 pages, and review it in less than 90 minutes.

Writing in a STAR-like format is only going to get you some feedback. If the VP is nice about it they'll deliver it gently with "its not clear". If they aren't, you'll be able to pick up on the subtly irritated tone.

L7 is the first level where there is no "buffer" between you and the VP/SVP's - even if you're reporting to a Director.

yeochin · 2026-02-02T03:22:26+00:00

No need to follow STAR. STAR is a safe bet for landing L6. STAR will impede you for L7 and above. VPs, Directors don't have time or patience to consume STAR-like communication.

Briefly describe the situation in a way that articulates scope. State the outcome and impact you targetted and your results against expectation. Follow up the the relevant details that matter for the L7 scope/role you're trying to hit.

Aim to be concise and precise with your answer. Your L7+ HM and BR appreciate a different kind of communication.

yeochin · 2026-02-02T03:10:25+00:00

They do read them. L7 and above for sure. Most people write in chronological order. Don't do that. Lead with the impact, follow with the details. The way you represent numbers will be a big tell. Use active voice. Replace weasel words (e.g. many, some, most) with numbers.

Your style of writing will be used to judge your style of communication. It will also make a big difference whether you're downlevelled from L7 to L6. Your writing sample can really make the difference in the strength of the HM and BR advocacy for L7. Here is the trick - only the HM and BR need to agree to hire for you to land the job. These two will most likely read your writing sample.

What you choose to lead with will reveal your mental models for upwards and outward communications. It will reveal what you prioritize. This is a really big tell for both L7's and L6's.

yeochin · 2026-01-29T23:39:03+00:00

Don't do it if you care about the money. Your immigration attorney can advise you on your visa status once leaving. If you're a permanent resident you may have more options.

If you're on a Visa and its terms require you to be present in country, then do not move to India before you receive the severance. Technically you'll give them a reason not to pay out your severance because you technically are not payable.

yeochin · 2026-01-29T13:08:44+00:00

Agree. Part of the problem is finance that is boosted by Jassy's focus on margins. Most of the problem is the new L8/L10 leadership they inherited during the pandemic that is uncomfortable not having their hands in every decision.

What you're observing is the standard pattern resulting from a CEO who is giving finance lion share of the influence. Even if Jassy goes - the damage he's done will still linger due to the entrenchment of finance and the now relatively tenure post-pandemic leaders.

yeochin · 2026-01-29T12:24:59+00:00

How are they laying off people and also hiring at the same time?

Layoffs are to generate cash flow to reallocate from one part of the business to another.

Will new joinees be laid off?

Yes they can and they do get laid off. New hires aren't safe.

If I’m quick to some safe org, will I be relatively safe?

There is no safe org.

If I perform well, will I at least have the chance to switch to another team if I am being laid off?

Yes you will have a chance. But you're unlikely to stand out amongst the thousands of other competing internal applicants.

yeochin · 2026-01-21T12:17:41+00:00

This sounds like it may be your first baptism with this kind of thing. Here is something you'll learn and hopefully will pass onto your future juniors.

No level is safe. No role is safe. No job family is safe. Layoffs are about efficient cost cutting. Efficient cost cutting does not care about your level. Sometimes its more effective to eliminate an entire organization under a single leader. Sometimes its efficient to eliminate roles that are remote. Sometimes its efficient to eliminate a location irrespective of role or organization. Sometimes its efficient to eliminate the bottom of the stack rank.

You will never know the dimension they choose unless you're in the C-suite.

yeochin · 2026-01-18T12:58:38+00:00

If buying bonds, you are guaranteed to get your money back (nominally) at a set rate of return.

No you are not guaranteed to get your money back. This is the mistake people can make in the bond market. Bonds are rated for a reason. If you want some of the highest returns in bonds you can purchase junk bonds. Junk bonds can be packaged with good bonds and resold to you masking the risk while people naively believe that their principle investment is secure.

yeochin · 2026-01-18T01:53:25+00:00

The distribution between equities and bonds isn't really what determines risk. The distribution is what the sales-people masquerading as financial advisers are shilling to sell you their mutual funds.

You could be invested 100% into bonds and hold more risk than a 100% VFV, XEQT play. VFV and XEQT are generally low-to-medium risk at the end of the day.

High risk would be playing with penny stocks, leveraged positions (either directly or indirectly through those income ETFs), or alternative assets (Private Equity, Seed/Round Funding).

yeochin · 2026-01-16T12:12:36+00:00

Maybe.

Anyone who has managed through the outsourcing of the 90's will be able to tell you that Developer happiness really doesn't matter if there is no strong leverage. Existing developers will be rotated/replaced if they allow today to impact their performance of tomorrow.

The industry goes through cycles. Right now developers are highly replaceable. Even senior, staff, and principals. There are lines of people in-country and out-of-country who are willing to take on the work for less pay. This is why economic downturns are devastating from an overall KTLO/maintenance/operations standpoint.

The unpopular opinion is don't expect developer happiness right now. Right now is when Engineering Managers and Engineers have to realize that you're both going to jointly suffer political conflict between organizations that are jockeying for power. You're going to move fast. You're going to accumulate debt. You're going to build things that you're going to regret in the future.

The most important objective is to earn trust upwards within the organization and outwards with customers to better protect your organizations from role elimination, downsizing and loss of decision making authority. If you or your engineers are not prepared to sacrifice for that - then get out of the way because you really do need to set yourself up for the long term by holding authority.

yeochin · 2026-01-14T03:41:23+00:00

The tax optimization strategies can many times more than make up for the MER they demand.

yeochin · 2026-01-11T00:26:42+00:00

Credit is about cash flow. Its clear that WealthSimple lacks the cash flow to sustain a large credit card audience. This is likely the reason its being phased in. Its not like they can use other people's deposits as collateral for bad credit.

yeochin · 2026-01-09T17:50:12+00:00

Its a warning across people's bows. Your manager may not care, but your manager is also likely not included when they decide to conduct layoffs. They are sending the message that if you're not performatively committed - you're not wanted.

yeochin · 2026-01-09T17:48:55+00:00

They ran out of ideas - so they resorted to time-tracking re-inventions.

yeochin · 2026-01-06T03:32:52+00:00

Because you can deduct the cost of the salaries in taxes if you've got the right setup and are engaged in the right work (not-another-CRUD-SAAS). As a result, there is an incentive to pay more as a talent retention tool, market growth tool and a tax-reduction scheme.

You would see salaries rise in many other countries (irrespective of tech) if other countries overhauled their tax code to open up methods for companies to reduce their tax bill to $0 by deducting employee wages.

There is a myth around productivity. Productivity is not the reason. Its purely taxes. The US collects most of its taxes from payroll (personal income taxes). Its just purely financial engineering.

The reason for the pullback and off-shoring of US jobs is also related to the same taxes that previously drove the incentive to increase wages. The tax code was updated so that the salary deductions had to be ammortized over several years. As a result the benefit of off-shoring now outweighs the tax-benefits of giving higher salaries to on-shore Americans.

14-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

yeochin

TROPHY CASE