That's what majority of the people think and do, those who find themselves in the similar situations and that's how companies like Amazon can continue doing this shady practices.
The upper management only gives a blink when it becomes more known by the public. They don't want to hear (just not to be in the responsibility zone) and when it's widely known they would go whitewashing or PR stunts.
Why they had to invent "to be the best employer of the world" as a leadership principle?
The more people should stand up and make the stupid policies known, that's the only way this can stop. Otherwise this policies will be the norm for many companies since "it can work"
Upper mgmt generally doesn't give a shit about what the public knows. Amazon is famous for employees pissing in bottles because they don't get enough breaks. No one cares enough to make the warehouse conditions humane. They just do enough PR to feel good about it. The job still sucks, and the pay still sucks.
The only thing that management cares about is how much they're paid, and how much power they have. Look at how Elon Musk behaves. He gets mad/irritated when told by regulators that he can't exercise the power he feels is his right. I actually don't think he gives a hoot about how much money he has, except as a tool for accomplishing what he wants.
Others are more into the wallet than the ego. Do you think Zuckerberg gives a crap about what privacy advocates think? Most people have a fair idea of how far FB spies on them, and Zuck knows they don't care as long as they can share cat pictures with their friends, or post Let's Go Brandon stuff. But you can bet that he's supremely pissed about losing so much money due to Apple's privacy changes.
"Because all network requests go through one socket thread, this loop blocked any further network communication and made Firefox unresponsive, unable to load web content."
Why side functionality (telemetry) of a tool uses only one network thread and can block any network communication ?
Yes that's another issue. But as a design pattern shouldn't we design our products to do their core functionality as much as independent from any anomalies that can happen?
This is almost akin to me if Tesla rolls out an update and the car decides to pull over to the curb to do the update, while you are driving to your job or worse to hospital with an emergency. My theory is there should be at least one health enterprise using firefox as their only browser for business functionality out in the wild.
> But as a design pattern shouldn't we design our products to do their core functionality as much as independent from any anomalies that can happen?
When expected anomalies happen, like telemetry being down or taking a long time to respond. Firefox is certainly already designed like that.
This was not that. This was a bug. There is no magical design that avoids bugs.
> This is almost akin to me if Tesla rolls out an update and the car decides to pull over to the curb to do the update, while you are driving to your job or worse to hospital with an emergency.
Firefox is not a car. You're going to have to get Mozilla a lot more funding if you think the browser should be designed with extreme resilience in mind as required for life-critical applications. If a health enterprise is using Firefox in a life-critical role, that's kind of their responsibility, not Mozilla's.
In theory, that's how it happens in Firefox. But when you have a bug in the core of the product (the network stack), there isn't much that the rest of the product can do to isolate from it.
Yes that's what you get when you have one thread for all network communications. The network stack did not fail, only the sole network thread got stuck. From the write up I understand if there was another thread for communications firefox would only fail to communicate with telemetry service but firefox would be able to function as users needed.
"This is why users who disabled Telemetry would see this problem resolved even though the problem is not related to Telemetry functionality itself and could have been triggered otherwise."
It was a bug. It can't block network communication normally. It's not like telemetry serializes with normal user traffic. It was just a stupid infinite loop that broke what otherwise would've certainly been nonblocking multiplexing of requests.
I'm not saying this was actually a good design, for obvious reasons, but one decent reason to do it this way is so things like proxy settings are shared.
Thousands of years ago felines decided to domesticate the hoomans for two reasons: continuous and scheduled supply of food and door opening functionality on demand.
So yes this is the easy way, but wouldn't this also help the vicious circle to continue? Would this let bad managers to push out people whenever they feel like they are challenged to manage or just as they like it, successfully everytime ? Toxic culture thrives on that and I don't think it stays contained in the company(ies) people are pushed out from.
I think we are hearing more and more managers put people in PIP or other manage-out tools as a retaliation and everyone suggests to apply other jobs when there is a confrontation. Well, when all the companies share the toxic management culture it will be too late ask the culture to change, won't be? I believe more people should stand their ground when they face unfairness, hostility and/or bad management for some more time as they can afford. Making bad managers life easier does not solve the bigger or growing problem. It won't change as long as they go away silently and conveniently.
The issue is that companies are setup to protect themselves in every way possible, and they will do that. I worked on an abusive team and raised blatant harassment to my skip.
They ignored it, so I slowly worked my way up the chain to the head of engineering. I was given all the support in the world, and then suddenly let go and told to pound sand. My lawyer said that I could fight it for settlement but it would not be worth the investment to do so.
During that time I learned many others quit in the same office as me. The only impactful thing I could do was post a negative review on Glassdoor, and tell people 1-1 about my horrible experience. I ended up going from a midsized company to FAANG, and my career is better from it.
It was slightly worse than this. The head of HR was going to cull my office of abusive team members, but they themselves were fired before they could do that. This was before I joined. I reached out and they were willing to speak with the head of engineering about the history of harassment, but my company refused.
I also had a direct line with the founder, who in onboarding gives a two hour spiel how this will be the greatest company to work at, because their number one priority is employee experience. They ghosted me and several other senior members when we tried to raise concerns with them.
My best guess is that, they were seeking to be acquired and did not want to risk any drama which might impact their valuation. About a year after, they were acquired by a company with shitty terms for employees.
I think that employees should prioritize themselves first, if the company won’t do that. To your point though, this is a flawed system.
Perhaps the next wave of startups will clue into this. I think it would be a huge competitive advantage if done right. Creating a safe and productive work environment can help people to flourish.
The issue to me is companies are not perfect machines and letting machines chewing up human beings is an issue that humans beings can address and solve. I think more people should stand up when they face unfairness, regardless of they face it or somebody nearby, also communicate and help each other. I don't think when people have accept their fate and go to the next job, they are relieved and not bringing the emotional baggage. People (ideally) should be changing jobs for a change or a new challenge, or better pay or things appealing them more in a new job, not escape from another.
I think dependency hell is inevitable and every language coming up with their own solution for packaging and dependency handling is just making it worse and at the cases like this just catastrophic.
