It's certainly a lesson learned about who to hire and how to wind things down. I wasn't aware there was any issue until I started seeing these charges keep rolling through and had to roll up my sleeves and do my best to resolve it. Just as magazines and other services are not (now) legally allowed to make it difficult to cancel a service - I don't know how AWS can get away with this. If I establish that I am the legal owner of the business entity (who is not technical enough to deal with the problem), which could reasonably be done, it seems perfectly reasonable that there should be some kill switch available. What if I had a rogue employee who setup a run-away process in order to rack up charges? I can appreciate there is a risk management aspect to it for AWS - but this in my view rises to the level of deceptive business practice.
Unfortunately, the guy who actually ran this account fat fingered one of the addresses ([email protected] instead of [email protected]) - so there is no way to access the account, put in a credit card, and disassociate it.
I asked them what the process would be if myself or one of these former employees had died - and was given the run-around. Every single thing they told me to do did not work and just exposed another exception.
There are multiple contacts in amazon -- Billing, Operations, and Security. If you have access to the Billing email you should use that for contacting them.
Otherwise it looks like a credit card dispute might trigger a cancellation or similar but I don't know for sure.
Or they just don’t want to… I love my kids but I would prefer work to the tedium of dealing with small children or an infant any day. Most men I know just aren’t wired with the ability to tolerate child care. The last few years of “wokeness” can’t undo a few hundred thousand years of evolutionary biology.
Or everyone struggles with childcare, men and women both, but men manage to avoid it more in our culture. Obviously there's some biology involved (men can't breastfeed, but bottles are a thing). Doesn't seem crazy that anyone might worry they'll be punished by their bosses for "slacking off" taking care of their kids though, it's pretty well-documented that it certainly takes a bite out of many women's careers[1].
I'm a software engineer and my peers have always typically been men. I've actually had a different experience where I find being a father rather difficult and outside my comfort zone however most of my male peers don't. They go googly eyed every time a colleague brings their new baby into the office.
I've had to work hard to learn how to be a father including taking the rare opportunity to be a stay at home dad while my wife temporarily returned to work for 14 weeks. Interestingly some of my fellow engineer dads lamented the fact that they couldn't be stay at home parents, even if only for the early years, since they typically earned a lot more than their wives. It just didn't make sense financially for them.
Men taking care of their kids isn't some fad or temporary woke trend. Men have always taken care of their kids but changes in society are now opening up different ways for them to do that.
Unlike new mothers, there is no sound biological reason for fathers to require extended paternity leave. Throughout human history, fathers have had an imperative to provide for their families and generally couldn’t afford the opportunity cost of taking an extended paternity leave. If there was a biological reason for this, it would have become culturally enshrined a long time ago there would be no debate on its merits. This a “nice to have” not a “need to have”. Our needs fundamentally arise from biology and thus have evolutionary origins. Saying otherwise because it isn’t convenient is “horseshit”.
Im really struggling to wrap my head around "not being wired for child care". We live in a world full of things that we as humans are obviously not "wired" for as we have created them in the past few hundred years, but the line gets drawn at child care for men?
Warren Buffett's first rule: don't lose money
Warren Buffett's second rule: don't forget the first rule
There is a good reason the federal government has restricted participation in private investment vehicles to accredited investors. The odds of winning the lottery on the type of business that needs to resort to crowd funding is vanishingly small. I would speculate that the majority of people drawn to these types of crowdfunding investment vehicles do not have a positive net worth or meaningful retirement savings.
I imagine the prospect of not having to author Maoist style diversity statements and other indignities will be quite a draw. Universities have become inhospitable and intolerant places for even politically moderate folks.
To keep the parent comment honest, the word "Mao" doesn't appear once in this article; and in fact, near the top they use McCarthyism as an example of the type of "indignity" spoken of. Why a phenomenon identified in western society in the article needs to be made into some jab at maoists is beyond me though.
I've used it for a wide variety of search and recommendation problems, albeit not in isolation. In practice, I've found that it is a great way to reduce the size of a search space before handing the problem off to a more precise algorithm.
