Respectfully, I think you should do more research.
The OMSCS program is well known and well respected in the tech industry. It's a masters degree from the currently 8th ranked computer science school in the U.S.
The university make no distinction between students who take the courses online, vs in person. I.e., the diploma's are identical.
In an interview earlier this week [1], with one of the new Editors-in-Chief states that before retracting he tried contacting Gary Williams and send him 3 emails to which Gary never replied.
[2] Ik heb Gary Williams, de enige van de drie auteurs die nog leeft, drie e-mails gestuurd. Daar heeft hij nooit op gereageerd. Op een gegeven moment houdt het op, hè?
It's not obvious to me that AI is the reason for the hiring slowdown.
ChatGPT was pretty useless when it first released. It was neat that you could talk to it but I don't think it actually became a tool you could depend on (and even then, in a very limited way) until sometime in 2024.
Basically:
- the junior hiring slowdown started in 2022.
- but LLM's have only really been useful in a work context starting around 2024.
As for this point:
> According to very recent research from Stanford’s Digital Economy Lab, published in August of this year, companies that adopt AI at higher rates are hiring juniors 13% less
The same point stands. The junior hiring slowdown existed before the AI spend.
I think the interest rate and shareholder pressure were the most immediate causes. In 2021 you could get head count to do trivial projects at many tech companies and by the end of 2022 you had layoffs and hiring freezes.
Tend to agree here. The slowdown here has more to do with the financial ecosystem. IE less capital available for some companies, higher salaries and a changed approach to work.
Doesn't it seem ingenuine how everything good is socialism and everything bad is communism? Also if socialism can't compete with capitalism then it's doomed. Socialism must make capitalism illegal in order to succeed and I don't want to be in a place where capitalism is illegal. And "market socialism" is not socialism either.
The talking point of "Rent control = bad" has always been disingenuous because it's parroted most often by the people who will be hurt from it the most (landlords). Home supply is already artificially constrained, regardless of rent control. Mostly because wealthy landlords form cartels to prevent new housing in major metro areas.
Rent control is just one tool that can be used to regulate housing, and it works in conjunction with other tools (e.g. rent control exceptions for new construction).
The U.S. already has an excessively de-regulated housing market, and it clearly has not worked for most people. Anyone that says regulation is bad here is almost certainly protecting their self interests.
I don't see how you can claim a home ownership rate above 60% means the market is working for most people.
All that means is that a majority of the population was able to buy a house at some point in time under some conditions. The recent data is clear: people who already have homes, are staying put in them. And a growing portion of people without homes are joining a fairly new class of "forever renters".
The median age of first time home buyers was 33 in 2020. In 2025 it is 40.
That's truly incredible if you think about it. In just 5 years, the median age has increased by 7 years.
Here's another interesting statistic: the percentage of homes bought by first time buyers is down 50% since 2007.
> Rent control is fundamentally unfair and socially undesirable.
I think this is an incredible claim to make. Unfair to who? Undesirable compared to what?
Rent control at it's core is a redistribution mechanism. It favors existing tenants at the expense of property owners.
If you care about low income renters getting displaced by a 40% rent increase, then it is a desirable mechanism.
> people will just use some offshore website instead
No they won't, because moving real money to and from these shady offshore websites is a nightmare, and without enforcement there will be too much fraud in the system for the vast majority of regular people to bother.
Gambling is so prevalent today because 1) there is incessant advertising, including being overlaid on the game you are watching and 2) it is convenient, taking like 3 clicks and under a minute to go from scratch to placing bets. You can even use Apple Pay. Take away either of these and participation rates will plummet.
You don't even need to speculate, just look at the numbers. There were countless illegal and gray market gambling options available a decade ago, both online and in-person. How many people were participating back then? I personally didn't know anyone who bet on games outside of maybe the occasional trip to Vegas, and that too was just for the novelty of it. Today >50% of adults in the US are regularly betting online, and the number is growing every year.
I think you’re right - some people will gamble no matter what, but removing all barriers to entry and advertising it on ESPN will certainly grow that market much more than people actively seeking out betting in shady places online.
It’s similar to weed legalization 10 years ago. Yes, it’s now much less likely that your weed will be spiked with meth or you will be robbed by your dealer, but also like 1000% more of the population smokes weed now and it has some bad social side effects that people don’t like to think about.
I think in both cases, as with prohibition, making something commonplace illegal again tends to make people do crazy things if they’re addicted, and I’d bet gambling is no different
This is not a hypothetical, people already do it like that in my country (Argentina), you send your money to a person that buys tokens using cryptocoins, since these websites don't comply with the local regulation, even kids are addicted to gambling.
People buy illegal stuff and dark markets all the time. Even a decade ago I knew a guy who was buying dope and having it mailed to him from the dark web and he was minimally technical. They know there is a risk but they are willing to take it. This isn’t like buying a lawn motor - people will take some fraud as “acceptable losses”.
We are not talking about one person. Yes everyone "knows a guy" who will find ways of doing stuff regardless of the laws or availability. We don't need to care about that person. However if half of America is becoming that person then we absolutely need to care.
You're fighting anecdote with anecdote. Earlier you say back in the gray market days you knew nobody gambling in your circle. Now you're saying the other commenter's "one person" isn't representative. You can't have it both ways. Either both anecdotes need more data to support them or neither do.
I think the difference is that, with gambling, the "buying" part IS the addiction. It's money centered. But with dope, the "buying" part is nothing - you do it for the dope.
If I give out free dope, I'll get a lot of people hooked. If I give out free sports betting, but you get nothing, then nobody is hooked.
This is a problem that literally had minimal societal consequences just a few years ago before the 2018 supreme court ruling[1]. I don't see why we shouldn't just try to move the laws back to how things were in 2017.
I'd ban all advertisement and put a market cap on these companies before mandatory breakups happens.
None of these companies should be worth a billion dollars.
My big fear is these companies are all getting rich which means they'll be able to buy political influence.
I'm pretty tolerant of a lot of vices. I also don't really have a problem with low levels of gambling. But the way these companies are setup is just sick. It's abusive the the public and erosive to society in general.
Even in your comment you can see the challenge with education and gambling. In practice the return on a dollar (just a different formulation of EV) is often legally mandated to be something around 0.9 and for many games is very close to fair.
But variance, not expectation, is where casinos get their edge. The “Gambler’s ruin”[0] demonstrates that even in a fair game the Casino will win due to their effectively infinite bankroll compared to the player.
You can also simulate this yourself in code: have multiple players with small bankrolls play a game with positive EV but very high variance. You’ll find that the majority of players still lose all their money to the casino.
You can also see this intuitively: Imagine a game with a 1 in a million chance to win 2 million dollars, but each player only has a $10 bankroll. You can easily see that a thousand people could play this game and the house would still come out ahead despite the EV being very much in the players favor.
As someone who believes in legalizing all drugs and in general "personal freedoms", I'd add recreational drugs to this list.
The demand will always be there but there should be strong incentives to not incentivize use (e.g., the Purdue Pharma debacle). We're better served by having these markets addressed by legit players rather then criminal cartels.
I'm not sure what the best solution is, but unfettered promotion to consume is not the way.
> I don't think you can kill corporate run gambling - people will just use some offshore website instead.
You can block it at payment rails. The reasonable amount of avoidance of controls around gambling laws is not zero [1]. You're making it hard for all but the most determined, who are free to lose it all.
[1] https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra... (Control-F "This extends beyond payments") Broadly speaking, we are not "solving" gambling with these ideas; we are, as a society and sociopolitical economic system, pulling levers to arrive at the intersection of harm reduction and rights impairment. Some gambling, but only so much, for most but not all.
(work in finance, risk management, fintech/payments, etc)
Gamblers know the odds are stacked against them yet they end up stuck in a psychological prison within their own brain that they can't escape from even if they realize what they do is harmful.
Maybe a better law: check id, you are not allowed to take from any gambler more than 10 bets a year and no bet can be over 1k.
For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors.
Funny how we don't let average people invest in some stuff but we let them gamble.
For offshore gambling pursue them aggressively if they serve US clients.
>For big gamblers, we can have "qualified gamblers" rules like we do for qualified investors.
This is actually a take I haven't seen elsewhere. Yes, we do protect investors at least marginally better (lots of people still get fleeced with little recourse, unfortunately) but conceptually, this is a very interesting idea.
The fact that gambling exists on a loophole of being "for entertainment purposes only"[0] isn't a good enough distinction to me.
[0]: This is a brief one sentence summary of it. There's actually a bit of nuance involved depending on a number of factors, but essentially the core presume rests on some version of this.
His take isn't new. It is deployed in part in the UK. Effectively, gambling companies adopt the role of the state conducting a full audit into your personal circumstances, income, assets, bank statement, utility bills to work out whether you can gamble.
I would hope that I don't need to explain why this isn't a good idea. But the one you may not have thought of: gambling companies love this because small companies are unable to audit, margins in the sector collapsed when activity moved online, that has stopped AND they are able to target customers who they don't want to deal with, before these rules it was difficult to identify customers who would take their money, now they have your passport, your address, your bank statements, they know where your money comes from (professional gamblers can still use beards but in the UK, students used to be very popular beards...that has stopped, regulators have also brought in rules to prevent beards being used as part of the changes above...the "neoliberal" US doesn't have rules anywhere close to this, it is complete madness).
There's a difference here between the concept and implementation though.
I agree, giving up that much information to a third party, opens too many risks for me, and I don't want it to be standard.
However, I'm sure there is some middle ground here that isn't so violating to your privacy. Like mentioned before, having a default limit that can only be surpassed if you're willing to go through some form of qualification. The limit can be set in place without any audit required, if its low enough.
Gamblers know the odds are stacked against them and still gamble...because it is fun.
You realise that people waste their money on things that are significantly less understandable than gambling. Do you see someone driving a Ferrari and seethe with rage because Ferrari doesn't run a "qualified driver" program?
The body will develop a tolerance (or the reverse, a sensitization reaction) to just about any substance that's taken regularly due to homeostasis. However, so long as you're taking a dose that nudges some physiologic signal/need in the right direction, your body's response to the substance will be minimal.
I'd be surprised if you can find anything this isn't true for.
A lack of studies on what the tolerance looks like for a particular substance does not imply that tolerance does not form.
In the case of melatonin: It's almost universally true that your sleep quality is worse than it was before once you stop taking it (for a few days at least). That's an indication that your body's equilibrium has changed from habitual use.
Unfortunately brexit meant that a hell of a lot of people behind the scenes scrambled to keep life running as usual, so that brexiteers could just say "See? Everything's fine"
I think the brexiteers are saying this is no good - they didn't do it properly. One of my disappointments with it all as a remainer was I thought at least the brexiteers will be happy but they were miseries before and miseries after as well.
There's quite a lot of scrambling just to keep most stuff going as you say.
Unfortunately since the rhetoric worked in the US, copycats have been multiplying in the west, and it's been working. Whatever the forces at play are, they seem to be the same everywhere. Discontent is a fertile ground for manipulation.
Did they really vote for that? I'm not American but have been quite surprised by the ever changing Trump tariff lottery. Brexit on the other hand was kind of predictable.
You don't sniff cocaine with the intention of getting addicted to it. But you get addicted if you take it and you should know that. So, in the end, you do sniff cocaine to get addicted.
You don't vote to a demagogue to get shafted. But you get shafted if you do so. Therefore ...
The OMSCS program is well known and well respected in the tech industry. It's a masters degree from the currently 8th ranked computer science school in the U.S.
The university make no distinction between students who take the courses online, vs in person. I.e., the diploma's are identical.
reply