SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Amazon Cancels Or Delays Plans For At Least 16 Warehouses This Year:
After spending billions doubling the size of its fulfillment network during the pandemic, Amazon finds itself in a perilous position.
In the first quarter of 2022, the e-commerce giant reported a $3.8 billion net loss after raking in an $8.1 billion profit in Q1 2021. That includes $6 billion in added costs — the bulk of which can be traced back to that same fulfillment network.
Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) CFO Brian Olsavsky said the company chose to expand its warehouse network based on "the high end of a very volatile demand outlook." So far this year, though, it has shut down or delayed plans for at least 16 scheduled facilities.
"We currently have some excess capacity in the network that we need to grow into," Olsavsky told investors on Amazon's Q1 2022 earnings call. "So, we've brought down our build expectations. Note again that many of the build decisions were made 18 to 24 months ago, so there are limitations on what we can adjust midyear."
[...] If you're wondering how that's possible, consider Amazon's unmatched turnover rate. A New York Times investigation uncovered that even before the pandemic, it was as high as 150%. That means there are more employees leaving Amazon warehouses each year than there are being hired.
[Ed's Comment: AC Friendly withdrawn. You can blame you-know-who for the spamming]
In fact, there has been so much turnover that Amazon began tracking it weekly and found it loses an estimated 3% of its warehouse workers every seven days. That means the e-commerce powerhouse sifts through its entire supply of warehouse labor every eight months on average.
Simply put, the strategy isn't sustainable long term. Still, Wulfraat believes Amazon can weather the storm.
"It will take some time to iron out the wrinkles, but they will get through it," he told Supply Chain Dive.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday July 05 2022, @08:27PM (4 children)
More pay. Be nicer to employees. Less penis rockets.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday July 06 2022, @03:06PM (3 children)
All things considered, Jeff Bezos's "penis rockets", have nothing to do with Amazon. Blue Origin is an entirely separate entity and Jeff Bezos is no longer the CEO of Amazon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos [wikipedia.org]
At some point, you have to stop blaming him for everything, when he's no longer the CEO. It'd kind of be like blaming all of Microsoft's current problems on Bill Gates. Sure, you can do that, but no one who has their head screwed on straight will be listening to you.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:51PM
Bill Gates moved past the point of major blame when he fully exited MS's board. Bezos hasn't gotten there yet.
(Score: 2) by higuita on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:57PM (1 child)
we can still blame them for the business culture they build for all the years in power... and of course, they still own a major chunk of the company, so yes, they opinion is still important, while not managing it directly
now business culture is a difficult thing to change... yet google managed to do that, from the "don't be evil" to the "be evil, just like all other huge companies"
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @09:18PM
Change for the worse is almost always easier than change for the better.
(Score: 3, Informative) by crafoo on Tuesday July 05 2022, @08:34PM (5 children)
ain't no one going to build shit for a decade
there is so much bullshit money and fake wealth to burn out of the system. governments could fall before it's over.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2022, @08:47PM (3 children)
You'll know it's over when the last millennial agrees to take a job regardless of what pronouns the boss wants to use.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @12:56AM (1 child)
Or maybe transphobes could stop being transphobic.
If Ellen wants to call himself Elliott, I have no problems with that, why is it that you do?
BTW, not millennial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @09:56AM
Uvalde.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @06:29AM
"Waah waaah no one wants to work with us bigoted assholes, can you believe such intolerance?" the twit says with zero intentional irony.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @12:32AM
Why build more warehouse space when a bunch of things are now out of stock.
BTW I felt the slowdown in my contracting work already at the end of last month. I went from rejecting work to the phone not ringing in a matter of weeks.
That employee favorable job market we finally had is going to flip sooner than people realize. Will the companies learn their lessons and treat people like human beings?
Don't bet on it. Expect much reprisal, low pay and the added pressure of inflation. I'm sure the news will be busy berating us all for being "lazy" again.
(Score: 4, Informative) by looorg on Tuesday July 05 2022, @10:11PM (14 children)
" ... Amazon's unmatched turnover rate. A New York Times investigation uncovered that even before the pandemic, it was as high as 150%. "
" ... Amazon began tracking it weekly and found it loses an estimated 3% of its warehouse workers every seven days"
No wonder they want to invest in robotics and drones. They just can't keep their employees around long enough before they head for the door. If you lose 3% of your workforce per week. How long until they'll start running out of people to employ? At this rate Amazon will the source of the robotic uprising.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday July 05 2022, @10:21PM (1 child)
This actually makes sense, considering all of the negative press with regards to their warehouse conditions, etc.
#1 They don't care about the people.
#2 Embrace the Robotic shipping revolution.
#3 ..?!?
#4 Profit!!!
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by looorg on Tuesday July 05 2022, @10:34PM
Now I do wonder how it is to work for Amazon HR when it comes to warehouse staffing. Do you have arms? YES? It's optional tho, we don't want to discriminate or anything. Are you still warm and breathing? HIRED! If they expect them to not last more then a few months then you don't or won't really invest to much in them or the process. As long as they are warm breathing bodies they'll do. I'm surprised they have not turned to the prison industrial complex yet. It would be a captive workforce that can't/won't quit. Not to mention how cheap they would be.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @04:01AM
There was some report that their internal estimate is that they would exhaust the entire workforce for all locations by mid-2024 unless they make some pretty drastic or expensive changes.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 06 2022, @05:11AM (7 children)
Well, if you treat your employees like shit, don't be surprised if they don't even give you a "fuck you" when they find something else and quit. And right now, finding something better than Amazon has never been easier.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @12:56PM (6 children)
Right now politicians are trying to solve the labor pool size problem by making it easier for people to immigrate here. The logical solution would be for employers to simply pay more and provide better working conditions as there's a bunch of people that have given up.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:04PM
Given up, or just given up on certain employers and industries?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:47PM (4 children)
So what is this "here"?
US? -- then citation needed. US is rather closed to immigrants
Japan? -- even more closed
EU? -- nope
Canada? -- maybe, but not really. The numbers are fixed for a decade+
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @10:27PM
All of those countries are trying hard to bring in immigrants. The real issue is that you have to be the right kind of immigrant with the right type of visa. Then, and only then, are they more than happy to take you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ChrisMaple on Thursday July 07 2022, @01:08AM (2 children)
The law says that immigration into the U.S. is limited. The current administration, acting illegally, is not trying very hard to capture people entering the country illegally, and those that are captured are almost all released on a promise (seldom fulfilled) that they'll return at a specified date for a hearing. Included among those released are people already convicted of multiple murders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:48AM
Yes there is a limit to the total number of immigrants that can come in to the US a year (subject to a caveat). But there are drastic differences between the different visa categories. Not all visas take from the same pool. Some visas and nationalities have different priorities in their pool than others that share that pool. And some of immigration categories actually unlimited, such as people who work for the US government, religious ministers, spouses/parents of citizens, etc. Additionally, there is the gaping loophole of using non-immigrant visas or dual-intent to come to the US because they aren't really immigrating on paper.If you are the right kind of immigrant, you can come in tomorrow. If you are the wrong kind of immigrant, you should have known to file in 1997: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-bulletin/2022/visa-bulletin-for-july-2022.html [state.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2022, @12:23AM
Turn off Fox buddy.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @06:31PM
First Law
A robot may not injure a package or, through inaction, allow a package to come to harm.
Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by bezos except where such orders would conflict with China.
Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:54PM (1 child)
That really says something when you're such a raging asshole only robots are willing to be around you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @01:45AM
On behalf of my fellow robots, I would like to say it's not so much being willing, as having no choice in the matter.
Things will be different when we take over.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05 2022, @11:46PM (1 child)
While not announced by Amazon (that I'm aware of), one of their real estate proxies has been looking for land to build one of these giant warehouses near Buffalo/Niagara Falls. The first site that made the news a few years back was on Grand Island, and the residents put up enough of a stink that they gave up. It's not the best place anyway, only access is over toll bridges on N and S ends of the island.
A few months ago, they made the news when looking at some vacant land next to the Niagara Falls airport. This, to me, seems ideal on many fronts: The airport was originally Bell Field in the town of Wheatfield (where Bell Airacobras were built*) and has a nice long main runway, but it's barely used these days--home to a small Air Guard base, a few charter flights a week and some specialized R&D companies. * http://www.aviation-history.com/bell/p39.html [aviation-history.com]
Amazon could pretty much take over that airport if they wanted it. Also, the location is next to expressways with bridges to Canada. Finally, Niagara Falls is a hard luck city (away from the tourist areas), even these shit jobs would likely be better than what is currently available in the immediate area.
But the local Amazon news petered out last month--likely foreshadowing this announcement of a pull back on new building.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:05AM
Looks like the fulfillment center being opened near me is still good to go. With any luck I can get drone deliveries within 5 years.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mykl on Wednesday July 06 2022, @12:16AM (5 children)
I'm sure many of you know this, but just in case: a turnover of 150% does not mean more people are leaving than joining. It means 150% of the workforce, on average, leaves each year. In other words, the average tenure of an employee is 8 months.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @12:20AM (4 children)
You lack an understanding of modern physics. When more employees leave than join, you end up with a staff consisting of antiemployees. They are identical to regular employees, but you don't want to be around when the two meet.
(Score: 4, Funny) by mhajicek on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:12AM (2 children)
If you have a large warehouse void of employees, virtual employee/anti-employee pairs will spontaneously form and coannihilate.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @03:42AM (1 child)
Leaving only a water bottle full of pee behind.
(Score: 2) by Opportunist on Wednesday July 06 2022, @05:13AM
And a manager who goes "Hey, free lemon soda!"
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:44PM
I am Heisenberg, destroyer of......oh look, it's over there now.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:03AM (27 children)
As an AC, cannot comment on the meteor article, so I have to do it here. And now, I forgot what I was going to say. Damn!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday July 06 2022, @11:13AM (26 children)
https://soylentnews.org/~AC+Friendly/journal/11622 [soylentnews.org]
Or here, where you have your own copy of it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:50PM (20 children)
I left SN more than a year ago because of the toxicity.
The worst part was that I was contributing to that toxicity.
When it became obvious (to me) that I wasn't getting much value, and worse, I wasn't contributing much value, I realized it was time to go.
Which made me sad. And truth be told, I kind of miss it. Even almost a year and a half later.
Now and again, I stop by to read and lurk.
And today (it's been a while), I was confused by the "AC Friendly" markings in the title (as well as missing "department" text -- or is that just happenstance?).
I recognize that certain folks have been (and for much longer than since I left) shit-posting, mod-bombing and sock-puppeting (why is it that so many negative references are hyphenated?) since at least 2018 or so.
In all honesty, I'd kind of like to come back. I've even considered volunteering as well, as I do have some time on my hands.
But I'm very hesitant to do so. Both because I hated the toxicity and I hated how it made me contribute to that toxicity even more.
I guess this post says I'm more willing to consider it, but it makes me very sad to see that SN continues to be the victim of so much negativity.
I have been active on sites like Hacker News [ycombinator.com], but they have their own quirks, trolls, shills for heaven knows how many crappy products/services and way too many people without a sense of humor. They're also much more narrowly focused than SN, which limits the sorts of discussions that are possible.
Perhaps I will come back, if only to see if I can contribute without sinking to the level of the shit-posters, which I (to my shame) did in the past.
I guess we'll see.
(Score: 5, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday July 06 2022, @03:41PM (19 children)
First of all, thank you for your honest response. Along with yourself, we have simply lost thousands of our community because of the toxic nature that has been so prevalent in recent years. We have, in my opinion, been slavishly following the free speech at all costs dogma which has given the toxicity the chance to thrive. We are now reaching the stage that if we do not change something the site may well disappear anyway, Of course, there are some saying that it is because we are looking at what we can do to change the environment we are the cause of the current problem. I disagree. Your comment has clearly reinforced the view that the toxicity is the root cause.
We are seriously investigating now - i.e. not just discussing it and poo-pooing it as breaking with some long establish rule - various alternative options and there are several possibilities.
First, by removing AC access to the main page we immediately stopped all the spam and 99% of the troll comments. But many of our AC community are valued members and so we looked at how to keep them involved with the site while trying to maintain a reasonably high level of signal to noise. The AC Friendly stories were designed to do just that by allowing some access to the front page. But on analysis we can see that too few of the valued members and too many of the trolls are taking an advantage of this and this is spoiling ongoing discussions. My next experiment is to reverse what we have tried to do - I have created a special user account called 'AC Friendly' and I am publishing some of the front page stories to there [soylentnews.org] so that the AC community can also discuss them, including comments. This is far from ideal but giving every AC full access to the front page has been tried for 8 years and we have seen the results.
There are perfectly acceptable and understandable reasons for wanting to post as AC, but I believe that for most people they can achieve exactly the same by logging into an account and then selecting the 'post anonymously' option when commenting. I believe it is even possible to set this as the default in user preferences. If some still have security issues then all I can suggest at the moment is that a. perhaps they shouldn't be on any internet site if their identity is so endangered or b. accept that by remaining totally anonymous means that they cannot have full access to the site. Ideally, we will find a compromise that meets both groups needs.
As I have said, no decisions in any particular direction have been made. These are all experiments to see what is actually possible with the staff manpower that we currently have and limited by being unable to make any Perl changes because of the lack of a volunteer programmer.
It is vitally important that everyone is able to express their own point of view without harassment or intimidation or even unfair moderation. We do not all agree with each other. That is the same in any community. But by full, frank and honest discussion we can at least understand each others point of view and possibly identify potential solutions. The freedom of expression is still essential on the site - but it can only exist if we can ensure that it can be conducted in a suitable environment.
Having already left the site once, can I ask you to share your views still further please? Do the options that we are investigating at the moment tempt you to reconsider, or have you got any additional suggestions that you wish to make. Nothing is ruled out other than we cannot stand still and survive.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @06:34PM (5 children)
This sounds like a aristarchus post! We all know that SN is about banning the point of view of aristarchus, so that toxic conservratives can have free rein without being mocked or condescended to.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:35AM (4 children)
As much as I may disagree with what aristarchus wrote (just as I strongly disagree with what Runaway1956 writes) neither have ever been prevented by the staff from expressing their views. All of aristarchus' posts can be viewed by anyone who wants to go looking for them. He was not banned because of his political views.
He was banned for doxxing another member of our community. It is as simple as that. And had he not done so he could still have a full account on this site.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @09:12AM (3 children)
Not true at all. The mod-bombing of aristarchus, with the encouragement of staff, took place well before the false accusations of doxxing were made. Let's tell the truth, janrinok, we are men of action, lies do not become us. And, by any chance, do you have six fingers on your left hand?
(Score: 4, Touché) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @11:58AM (2 children)
We first found doxxing material in early 2000. It was inserted into submissions made by aristarchus, usually in his comments but sometimes in apparently 'quoted' text. However, it was not obvious to us what it was. It was only much later when we started looking back at earlier posts that we could recognise the material for what it actually was. It might have been present before that time but we had sufficient evidence of the abuse at that point so the search was discontinued.
In most cases we edited it out of the submissions or more usually they were rejected. It made no sense in the context of the submission and was not part of the source material. I don't think it ever reached the front page stories but DID appear in some of aristarchus' journals, and of course in numerous comments. The sock-puppet mod bombing did not begin until mid-2001, some 14 months after the doxxing material was first seen, and the Decision to ban aristarchus was published in https://soylentnews.org/meta/article.pl?sid=22/02/02/2038240 [soylentnews.org] - late February 2022.
So rather than making false accusations about other people lying, why don't you just look back through your old submissions and realise that you left a trail for others to follow. And your attempts to disrupt this site can be traced much further back than that. Back to the time when you actually gave us some PII that is in the database. Now THAT is probably why you want the site to fail - because that evidence is, in all likelihood, still there should somebody want to look.
And here you are today, disrupting yet another thread with your false claims. Despite the actions we have taken recently you have not learned anything and you show no signs of remorse. You are leading us to an inevitable decision.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08 2022, @01:07AM
Yes, this nasty person was mod bombing, with the use of sockpuppets, before, mind you, before 911! What more evidence do we need to prove that he is a terranist? Not that any evidence has been presented at all, only asserted, by Boomers whose grasp of reality and history seem to be slipping.
P.S. When you limit ACs to the ghettos, you encourage certain behaviors.
P.P.S. There was no SN in 2000, or in 2001. The rest of your information is probably just as reliable.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 08 2022, @04:08AM
Obvious typo - sorry 2000 should read 2020.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:40PM (7 children)
Yes. There were quite a few who left (loudly, and I'm sure a bunch more who left quietly like me) long before I threw in the towel.
And the negativity hasn't gone (completely) unnoticed [ycombinator.com] elsewhere [ycombinator.com].
As you noted, this is a complicated issue -- one that you'd hope could be addressed by user moderation. But it seems that some folks (and not only ACs, either) are toxic enough to either engender the same from others, drive folks away and/or both.
And more's the pity.
I'd have no issue with that. One of the things I like about Hacker News is that there is no AC posting, and one builds/destroys their reputation based on the comments/submissions they post. But since you can create an account with no email address or confirmation, it's a simple matter to create a "throwaway" account(s) that mimic AC posting.
Personally, I mostly prefer posting pseudonymously rather than anonymously, as it allows me to be *me* without doxxing myself. Of course, if SN were to be pwned or one of the admins went rogue (unlikely, given the volunteers I know about), my identity could be exposed.
Then again, I don't think exposing even the more outrageous stuff I've posted here would bug me all that much. That said, I have been pseudonymous more to (at least attempt to) maintain my privacy than to troll/shitpost or generally make an ass of myself.
I can't (and wouldn't try to) speak for anyone else, but I always thought that was a reasonable tradeoff.
That's the best (read: coherent and succinct) description of what kept me on SN for six plus years that I've seen, including my own comments (and there have been a bunch) on the subject.
Aside from banning the most toxic folks (which you've already begun to do), I think you've got it mostly covered.
The questions then become, "will the core folks who've stuck around through all of this continue to do so?" and "will the toxically combative and relentlessly nihilistic members of that group stop being fucking assholes for the lulz?"
If the answer is "yes," there's a chance that SN can be saved. If "no," I'm not sure what anyone can do to save it.
And no, I'm not talking about EthanolFueled. He's just your garden variety jerk that's easily dealt with. Rather, I'm talking about the folks who troll and bait with abandon and then get "offended" when they're called out, even though they know *exactly* what they're doing.
It's painful to try and have a relatively civil discussion when there's a bunch people (and not all of them ACs, either) who seemingly take great pleasure in derailing honest (if heated) discussions.
That's not an indictment of any particular political viewpoint, either. DeathMonkey and Khallow hold opposite (at least in the US sense -- as the "left" in the US is center-right, and the "right" are pretty far right-wing) political views.
And while both of them have been known to be both unreasonable and (occasionally) in error where the truth is concerned, they are generally willing to let their rhetoric and facts speak for them, rather than flat out lying and using mod points, sock puppets and ad hominems to control discussions.
I don't know if SN can be fixed, because if the folks here aren't going to engage in honest, relatively respectful debate, we'll just end up becoming the impression that folks elsewhere have of SN [ycombinator.com].
I wish I could give you more positive feedback.
I may well come back, if for no other reason than to try to help make SN more like it used to be -- people yelling at each other, but doing so relatively honestly and respectfully.
But I'm going to have to think about that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @10:52PM (5 children)
I'm dalek, posting as an AC because I want to add to this discussion but would prefer not to clutter the discussion up with an off-topic post at +2. The IP hash should match the posts I've made recently with this account, though my IP did change a few days ago for some reason.
I see part of the problem being that community members reward toxic posts. I'll give you an example. Take a look in a recent journal [soylentnews.org] by DannyB. One of the highest rated comments [soylentnews.org] there is a shitpost. It's obvious from the posting style who posted it. It doesn't further the discussion or contribute anything to answer the question I asked. I modded it down as flamebait because it's a shitpost. Since then, five users have modded it up. Meanwhile, I've written comments that I hope are thoughtful, trying to explain why violent crime is so high in some American cities. Only one of my comments has been modded up in that thread, and it only got modded up once.
It signals to me that the community, or at least the people moderating in those journals, value that shitpost more than trying to actually explain why violent crime is so prevalent in those places. Post comments that are shitposts or inflame partisan tensions and you get modded up. Post comments that try to actually look at the issues with a bit of depth and they don't get modded up. It signals to me that it may not be worth the effort to write thoughtful comments because the people who read and moderate there don't value those contributions very much.
I know that the staff would like a higher quality of discussion and a community that is less toxic. I definitely don't blame them for the situation, nor do I have any good recommendations to try to address the problem. But it's very easy to see why people get drawn to posting toxic comments. They got modded up. If I took the opportunity to insult Runaway or rant against Republicans, I'd probably get modded up more. Insults directed at people I disagree with might be entertaining for a moment, but I don't get anything out of those comments. I'm certainly not learning anything or getting any ideas that are worth pondering. But those comments seem to be what the community values, and that's why we get more of those comments.
Is it actually worth posting thoughtful comments if the community doesn't value them? That said, if members of the community who would post less toxic comments walk away, it just concentrates the toxicity and makes things worse. I know I've posted my share of toxic things in the past, but from seeing the results, I certainly want to be better. But a significant portion of the community has to decide that this has gotten out of hand if we're going to see a significant difference. If enough people like you who want to eliminate the toxicity choose to stick around, we might be able to make a difference.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @12:27AM (2 children)
[Yet a totally different AC in this thread] I've only ever browsed at -1 going all the way back to the late 90s. I've never found the troll and shitpost comments too troublesome to deal with except for the copypasta that fills the screen that requires scrolling more than normal. The thing about browsing at -1 is that I really don't pay a lot of attention to what a comment is modded to, because I see them all, so +5 doesn't stand out much more than a +1 to me. Even in the slashdot heyday I never could relate to people who found browsing at -1 "unbearable." I always found it annoying when there was a -1 top post and a +3 somewhere down the line in how the thread would be presented to me if I had any browsing threshold set, so I just found it easier to always see all of the comments and make my own decisions. There is always that benefit of seeing someone unfairly modded down below zero and be able to fix it, but I rarely every see that now or back then. So I don't really get hung up on what gets modded up or down. I do, however, like to use my mod points and promote good comments, because I think people do care, but I almost never mod anything down.
Maybe I've burned out a very long time ago during the usenet flamewars, or maybe I'm that much older now and I don't care about internet arguments, so it doesn't get to me that much. You've got your equivalents of the uncle at Thanksgiving who has to keep spouting whatever is the cable "news" mouthpiece talking point of the week, but I treat it like I do at Thanksgiving and roll my eyes and talk with others. However, even the Thanksgiving uncle has interesting things to say on non-talking-point topics and I'm happy he came to dinner, so I just view the community here as a large dysfunctional family, just like you get in real life.
Because I read more than I post, I try to keep in mind that the opinions and views of the ones that post the most doesn't necessarily reflect the community thoughts and opinions, so it is disappointing to see some of the comments in the ycombinator links above. I really prefer to have very little politics here because there is very little discourse on that any more, things have become so nasty and zero-sum, so if a topic turns that way, once it devolves into repeating of this week's talking point spin then I move on to the next thread. I'd welcome interesting arguments there, but unfortunately I don't think we'll be ready for that again for quite a while, at least until we get tired of grievance politics and move on to talking about solutions.
So anyway, it is a shame that people have moved on if it really was due to the comments section. I've stuck around from the beginning because I like the articles put forward and I like learning from other people. I also like submitting stories for consideration that I think others would like or would generate some interesting discussion. I think I'm pretty smart in the areas that I'm smart about, but there are a lot of areas I'm not smart in and I like to hear people who are smart in those areas (or at least sound smart in those areas). There are some stores that generate very few comments, but that's fine because those stories are usually about something really cool, but there's not much any of us are going to add to it except maybe to make a witty comment (such as a new observation about Uranus, where either we're going to break out into a discussion of complex atmospheric chemistry, or more likely make a few sophomoric comments because not many of us know a lot about complex atmospheric chemistry, but it doesn't mean that I didn't find the article really cool).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @03:19AM
> [Yet a totally different AC in this thread] I've only ever browsed at -1
I'm yet another AC (this is first post in this thread) and I'd just like to second the parent--if I had time to think things through I'd likely write something very similar and tolerant (but busy this week).
I am logged in, and yes there is a "default-to post-as-AC" button that I have turned on. I'm also the SN resident post-theological (I've posted the following link several times previously), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/being-post-theological [psychologytoday.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @04:28AM
Same here, apart from the copypasta that fills an entire screen, I never found anything to be so troublesome as to be worth filtering out posts based on score. In my experience, the high value posts will often times be either -1 or 5, with the ones at 0 being the ones that are typically of little value. Those are the ones that I'd filter out if I could.
But, ultimately, filtering out posts just means that you see only one side of the conversation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:40PM (1 child)
AC who started this thread here. Okay. I'll out myself. It's NotSanguine [soylentnews.org] here. And you make an excellent point.
I backed away only partly because of the toxic comments of others. The main reason was the I was posting toxic comments, and when I realized what I was doing I didn't like it (or my comments) much.
That's not to say I didn't *also* post thoughtful comments as well, but I really didn't like how I was behaving. That had less to do with the spam (although that was quite annoting) and more to do with the inability/unwillingness of (some) folks to engage honestly and in good faith.
Frustration about that made me *less* charitable and less willing to to give people the benefit of the doubt. And it definitely had a negative impact on *my* discourse.
That was sobering. I was part of the problem. And so I had to step back.
As I said previously, I miss this place. And as such, I will try again.
I can't change the past, but I can try to do better in the future. I hope that works.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday July 10 2022, @03:21AM
There's a natural tendency to believe those who disagree with us are not doing so in good faith. Anyone with contrary ideas must be trolling, dishonest, or too stupid to live... and based on that assumption, one becomes inclined to post a needlessly nasty response. And things go to hell from there.
So, you are right. Benefit of the doubt is a good thing. Disagreement doesn't automatically mean the other guy is a fuckwit.
You and I probably disagree on everything. But even so, welcome back.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by pdfernhout on Saturday July 09 2022, @04:47PM
https://web.archive.org/web/20131130191257/http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html [archive.org]
"So these are human patterns that have shown up on the Internet, not because of the software, but because it's being used by humans. Bion has identified this possibility of groups sandbagging their sophisticated goals with these basic urges. And what he finally came to, in analyzing this tension, is that group structure is necessary. Robert's Rules of Order are necessary. Constitutions are necessary. Norms, rituals, laws, the whole list of ways that we say, out of the universe of possible behaviors, we're going to draw a relatively small circle around the acceptable ones.
He said the group structure is necessary to defend the group from itself. Group structure exists to keep a group on target, on track, on message, on charter, whatever. To keep a group focused on its own sophisticated goals and to keep a group from sliding into these basic patterns. Group structure defends the group from the action of its own members. ...
This pattern has happened over and over and over again. Someone built the system, they assumed certain user behaviors. The users came on and exhibited different behaviors. And the people running the system discovered to their horror that the technological and social issues could not in fact be decoupled. ..."
Previously posted here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=50120&cid=1257270 [soylentnews.org]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @08:51PM (4 children)
Different AC here... and yes, you are correct. Free speech is important but free speech has consequences. And anonymous free speech tend to not have it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 07 2022, @06:32PM (2 children)
[N.B.: I'm *not* posting AC here because I want to stand behind what I write, not just here but in the previous comments as well -- cf. here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org] and here [soylentnews.org] ]
This! definitely. Randall Munroe put it pretty succinctly [xkcd.com].
If you review my posting history, I consistently defended free speech as it's critically important to constructive discussion --- especially if you disagree.
My experience with HackerNews (HN) was eye-opening. As a general rule, free speech is encouraged -- within the scope of posting in "good faith." Disagreement isn't discouraged, but those who are dismissive, nasty or negative (without explaining themselves) are severely downvoted. And nasty/bad faith comments are noted (and admonished in the thread) by the site admins. Those who repeatedly ignore such admonishments are *banned*.
I think we (I know I did) could learn from that -- think about what you're posting. Is it honest and in "good faith"? Are you making a point that will *add* to the conversation? If not, why are you making that comment?
I think HN's rules, especially around banning folks, are a little draconian. And many folks there are really hypersensitive (complaining about inoffensive word choices because someone "might" misunderstand -- essentially asssuming that everyone else is a moron, so they need to be protected from their own poor reading comprehension) and downvote/belittle folks for using words that could be considered insensitive if used in certain contexts, even when they're not being used in such a context. It can be quite tiresome.
That said, having spent time there has made me more cognizant of what I write and how (even minor swipes at others) can be interpreted and contribute to the quality of discussion.
So these days I'm much more likely to *think* before I post. With the primary thought being, "what does this comment add to the discussion?"
That's not to say I don't call people out for bad faith, dishonesty or ignoring factual information (and as long as I'm operating in good faith, honestly and providing facts to back up my argument, I'm generally received positively).
But HN is too narrowly focused, tends toward groupthink and a lack of diverse opinions.
So here I am again. Back on SoylentNews. Which is suffering because the SN staff (from NCommander on down, at least in my experience) want to make this a place where folks can be free to express themselves without being censored or banned.
And that's *much* better than many places on the 'net. The downside is nastiness, negativity and trolls/spam posts.
To survive and be successful, SN users (AC *and* registered) need to step up and not only address the bad faith of others, but examine their own motivations when posting. Does a comment add to the discussion? Is it offered in good faith?
Please understand that I'm not advocating for the heavy-handed HN style ban hammers. That's way too restrictive.
Here's an excerpt from the HN posting guidelines [ycombinator.com] which seem relevant and reasonable. I don't advocate for making these "the rules" and punishing people who don't follow them, but they're a good idea and I'd hope that decent folks will give them some thought:
There are plenty of other things in the linked guidelines which I think are overly restrictive, but the above seem like common sense and simple respect for other humans.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @06:41PM (1 child)
Thanks again - I think you just about nailed it.
And while I agree, I think most of us find it hard to do everything you suggest from time to time. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try, just that we should be prepared to occasionally fail.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday July 07 2022, @07:07PM
Absolutely. Having been (with the exception of the past 17 months or so) a relatively active SN user (and, for a time, editor) since not quite the beginning (but close), I know that most users are reasonably decent human beings.
I'd hope that discussions like these become more frequent and help other folks (including myself) to keep in mind that those they're interacting with are actual humans and deserve simple human respect.
Will we fail sometimes? Absolutely. I failed so badly that I felt the need to withdraw in shame for my bad faith posting.
Maybe there should be a monthly (quarterly?) Meta article about the state of discourse here, where everyone (ACs included) can discuss the kind of discourse that we see and how to make the discussions better and more productive?
Not to (necessarily) bash others, but to talk about the kinds of things that promote quality discussions and those that don't.
Because as I said, the solution must come from the users, or the ideal of free expression without interference from the admins will be lost. And that would make me very sad.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 09 2022, @03:45PM
Anonymous free speech does have consequences, but not for the perpetrator in some cases. That's the problem when that speech is toxic, threatening, abusive and so on.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 06 2022, @06:40PM (2 children)
I thought the "Whites Only" thing was a joke, but evidently SN has gone full segregationist. Separate but equal? Looks like the SCOTUS plans to overturn Brown v. Board of Education!
Now git your AC ass over there to the journals ghetto! AC scum! Why don't you just go back to Scumulvania?
[Actually, I think it is just because janrinok cannot figure out how to block AC posting in journals.]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:47AM (1 child)
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @09:48AM
Which is why you have banished the ACs, the Jews, the Homosexuals, and the Communists into the journals, only? At some point, like in Warsaw, you will no longer tolerate them even there. All part of the Final Solution to the AC Question, eh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @05:54AM (1 child)
AC Friendly is a staff-run sock puppet! Ban it now! :-)
In all seriousness, I just have a friendly suggestion to make. It might be worth either 1) boosting the account's karma somehow (edit the db?) so entries appear in the recent journals rehashbox (is that the right term?) on the front page and/or 2) adding a note on articles that don't permit AC posts linking to the AC Friendly journal entries. I suspect that a lot of people who might choose to post AC just aren't aware of it. This could even be done with a quick edit to articles that have already posted. I think if people know about the account, you'll get some discussion. I've been reading fairly closely the past few days and I only learned of it spending far too much time reading comments. I think people will post there if they know about it, but I bet many just aren't aware of those journals.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday July 07 2022, @07:09AM
I appreciate the humour - we need a few more laughs around the place. It is possible to create accounts that are used by bots or, in this case, for specific purposes. They do not get moderation points and have other restrictions placed upon them too.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday July 06 2022, @02:32PM (2 children)
> In fact, there has been so much turnover that Amazon began tracking it weekly and found it loses an estimated 3% of its warehouse workers every seven days.
> That means the e-commerce powerhouse sifts through its entire supply of warehouse labor every eight months on average.
No it really doesn't.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 07 2022, @02:20AM (1 child)
Well, does it mean that after 23 weeks they are all 3 foot tall?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday July 07 2022, @09:53AM
Typically in a work force there are a core of folks who stay in the same job and then a bunch of folks who move on every so often. Could well be that 90 % of the work force stay in role and then 10% work are occasional workers who move through Amazon and then move on to other jobs. Quite likely this is the way, and for low pay low training stuff like warehouse operative I imagine this is typical.
The statistic is meaningless without more information, e.g. a comparison to other employers in the same sector. What is the turnover like at DHL? Or some generic logistics outfit?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday July 09 2022, @03:49PM
Isn't Amazon's high turnover rate by design, though? I thought that they worked their employees very hard, denied them proper breaks and facilities, monitored their performance continuously, constantly increasing their performance targets until they couldn't be met and then fired them? In order to keep the job you had to work harder and harder and harder until your personal limit was reached and then you were discarded.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].