Not all places do this; the place I currently work only rewards leaders for "impact" and people have the option of whether to take on leadership responsibilities.
Places that reward non-leaders for impact are doing so intentionally to encourage people to self-organize into teams that produce the most value for the business. The theory being that the people on the ground often have a clearer view of whether value is being created than the various layers of middle management do. If you work in a place like this it's actually part of your job to stay plugged in to the business side and determine whether you're working on something valuable or not.
I suspect you mean that people would prefer to spend a lot of money on fuel rather than moving. Maybe they feel that overall moving would be a quality of life decrease.
No, I'm not talking about "preference". People don't "prefer" to live paycheck-to-paycheck, with any meager savings they're able to accumulate being consumed by unplanned expenses until they're eventually forced to take on debt to make ends meet - which only exacerbates the problem by reducing their cash flow even further.
"Just move" or "just get a new job" is great advice for a highly mobile household where the workers have skills in high demand (e.g. young tech workers with no dependents).
For a great many people, "just move" is terrible advice. Moving is financially burdensome, socially disruptive, at times irresponsible, and at other times impossible. Not everyone has the option of just picking up and moving to a place that's more economically viable. They may not have the money to move. They may have obligations tying them to a particular geographical area. There might be legal barriers preventing them from moving.
"Just get a new job" is similarly terrible advice for most workers, for whom a job is not an easily disposable or replaceable thing. It's nice to work in software, where anyone with a reasonable network can organize half a dozen interviews next week with close to no effort. Most people aren't in software, though. A friend with a STEM PhD recently spent 18 months looking for a new job. Now think about people who have less desirable education or skills. "Just get a new job" is not advice that they can act on easily; certainly not quickly in response to rising fuel prices.
I was going to write a long thing here about autonomy and economic circumstances, but I can't really be bothered. In short: people really don't like having their entire lives disrupted, and we shouldn't be building a society that expects that of the average person.
Everything you write here is true, but at the end of the day, if someone lives 50 miles from their job and fuel prices went up enough they would either move or get a new job.
Same if the local grocery stores all closed.
They're not just gonna curl up and die. They might stay and struggle and try to make it work until it's not possible, sure.
You're overcomplicating something that really doesn't need to be. I've been poor, have poor friends, we have autonomy, lol.
We've been using a serverless stack on AWS for a while (API Gateway, Lambda, S3, SQS, RDS) and it's been a good experience overall.
I can't recommend Serverless Framework. The abstractions are leaky and it's quite opinionated about architecture. We regularly need to step away from Serverless Framework to use various features offered by AWS. Meanwhile, it's led us to build an infrastructure that reflects our org chart in some really unpleasant ways. I wish we'd used AWS CDK from the start.
Lambda currently makes sense for us cost-wise, but we are approaching an inflection point where that will no longer be true (something like Fargate will probably be cheaper). Problem is, the cost of migrating from Lambda to Fargate will be non-trivial for us. I wish we'd used containers on Lambda from the start.
We struggle regularly with global state in the Lambda runtime. Some devs avoid it assiduously, which can result in costly inefficiencies which have bitten us badly a few times (think hitting API limits due to calls happening on each Lambda invocation rather than only when needed). Other devs make use of global state for efficiency benefits, which then bites us by causing difficult-to-reproduce bugs. I don't think there's a great solution to this in the Lambda runtime.
Overall I think the benefits of security, process isolation, scaling, cost, etc. have all made it worth it, but there are things I would do differently if I was setting up a project from scratch.
> I wish we'd used containers on Lambda from the start.
Does this actually solve a problem? You still need to implement the lambda interface. so as someone who hasn’t used them, containers just seem to replace the zip file format with no actual portability benefit
At the very least we would've had the build tooling and infrastructure to support containers from the get-go, rather than having to migrate from zips to containers.
Speculative, but had we used containers from the start we would likely have built "fatter" Lambdas running full web servers with an extant web framework (someone else in this thread mentioned Flask - we don't use anything like that, we have one Lambda per... function, and our functions just consume the raw Lambda event).
> No one seems to know how to get interviews right.
Plenty of people do, but good interview processes are highly context-dependent and not trivially transferable.
And most companies just cargo-cult something associated with a name brand, then tweak it to something they're personally comfortable conducting.
I'll quote myself from an old comment:
> Every time one of these interviewing posts bubbles up I skim it to see if the author mentions things like: company size, team composition, the nature of the work the team is doing, the nature of the industry the company exists in, the way hiring decisions are made, the desired properties of their hiring process, their offer rate, acceptance rate, turnover rate, the amount of time positions tend to stay open for, or really just anything that would offer some context on what, specifically, their interview process is optimized for or achieving.
> Nine times out of ten that stuff is absent and the post is just a bunch of opinion and conjecture.
> Comments on Workplace, the company’s internal version of Facebook for employees, came flying in. “This is war-time, we need a war-time CEO,” one wrote. “Beast mode activated,” a second employee posted.
> Others couldn’t believe what they’d just heard. “Did Mark just say there are a bunch of people at this company that don’t belong here[?]” a staffer asked. Another responded: “Who hired them?”
Two sorts of responses, emotionally opposed, but both coming from people V. Rao might categorize as "clueless" in The Gervais Principle.
> Social media giant Facebook has seen its daily active users (DAUs) drop for the first time in its 18-year history.
> Facebook's owner Meta Platforms says DAUs fell to 1.929bn in the three months to the end of December [2021], compared to 1.930bn in the previous quarter.
Places that reward non-leaders for impact are doing so intentionally to encourage people to self-organize into teams that produce the most value for the business. The theory being that the people on the ground often have a clearer view of whether value is being created than the various layers of middle management do. If you work in a place like this it's actually part of your job to stay plugged in to the business side and determine whether you're working on something valuable or not.