I genuinely applaud your insufficient workarounds for legitimate security protections and I say this as respectfully as possible: This is an extremely dumb use case and I can't imagine anyone would want it.
Maybe you don't read much, but it's obvious they weren't making some universal statement about code. They are referring to the code you write when you are just experimenting by yourself, for yourself. The point is to not let irrelevant things like usefulness, quality, conventions, etc. limit just tinkering and learning.
I think the people who think there is no stupid code don't actually ever witness truly bad code. The worst code that they come across is, at worst, below average. And since that's the worst they see, it gets mentally defined as bad.
I think that's basically an impossibility, unless the only code they look at is from people who have 5 minutes of coding experience and attempt to get working code from vibes (without the LLM). Even suggesting this makes me think you haven't even seen truly stupid code.
I'm talking code from people with no programming experience, trying to contribute to open-source mod projects by pattern matching words they see in the file. They see the keyword static a lot, so they just put static on random things.
True enough, and given that no company under 1000 headcount bothers to verify bachelor's degrees, OP should just lie to get through the initial filter.
Funnily enough, I tried wording my Berkeley Bootcamp a little differently on my resume to be a little more ambiguous at one point in time. I got called out on that pretty quick. Not my a company, but by someone I had review it.
