jvisick

“If a student uses the college search tool on CB.org, the student can add a GPA and SAT score range to the search filters. Those values are passed [to Facebook]”

So they don’t associate your official score to your browser, but presumably students who are using that search tool would be searching their real score - or a range close to it.

The headline is fairly leading, but the statement from the College Board is also fairly misleading. They’re not directly selling your official score to advertisers, but they’re indirectly selling data about you that gives a pretty good idea of your score.

I don’t think it’s good enough to have a blanket conception to not trust them completely.

On the other hand, I actually think we should, as a rule, not trust the output of an LLM.

They’re great for generative purposes, but I don’t think there’s a single valid case where the accuracy of their response should be outright trusted. Any information you get from an AI model should be validated outright.

There are many cases where a simple once-over from a human is good enough, but any time it tells you something you didn’t already know you should not trust it and, if you want to rely on that information, you should validate that it’s accurate.

Those look like small cards. But why not just inspect the page and grab the CSS if you’re so focused in re-creating them? Why try to find and shoehorn a component from a UI library to look exactly like that when your browser will tell you exactly how it looks the way it does?

Yeah, and those blood suckers are the richest assholes out there

That’s a little pedantic, don’t you think?

But didn’t you know? The poor cops are scared! Why would they check if a suspect is armed when they can just kill them and say they thought they were in danger?

It entirely depends on the culture around it. Is everyone expected to model underwear for their store? If someone doesn’t want to - is the culture supportive, neutral, dismissive, or antagonistic? Are they expected to do it but just allowed to choose not to? Or is there no expectation to do it, but volunteers are welcomed?

I can’t imagine anyone is being forced to, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the company culture is dismissive or demeaning of people who would rather not.

Notice the “up to” in their offer. It’s likely commission based and inflated numbers to lure the developer into doing it - to trick them into thinking exactly what you’ve said here.

I’d imagine what they actually pay out after you cave is significantly lower, only then you’ve already sold out your users so you might as well leave their tracking in there.

"To get a base salary of $170k you know you need to work hard as an Engineer, this sucks."

As someone who has worked as a UPS driver and now as a software developer, I can say that the UPS drivers definitely work harder than your average engineer.

That quote is also deftly ignoring the fact that you’re generally paid for the value you generate, not how hard to you work.

GitHub Copilot is just intellisense that can complete longer code blocks.

I’ve found that it can somewhat regularly predict a couple lines of code that generally resemble what I was going to type, but it very rarely gives me correct completions. By a fairly wide margin, I end up needing to correct a piece or two. To your point, it can absolutely be detrimental to juniors or new learners by introducing bugs that are sometimes nastily subtle. I also find it getting in the way only a bit less frequently than it helps.

I do recommend that experienced developers give it a shot because it has been a helpful tool. But to be clear - it’s really only a tool that helps me type faster. By no means does it help me produce better code, and I don’t ever see it full on replacing developers like the doomsayers like to preach. That being said, I think it’s $20 well spent for a company in that it easily saves more than $20 worth of time from my salary each month.