Yes please I totally agree. Something big must be going on there. I once bought an item through an Instagram ad. For about a month I got fake updates about shipping. Then one day I get an email that itvwas delivered 2 days ago, complete with a different shipping path and an apparently real USPS tracking ID. Of course I received nothing. Complained to PayPal, the complaint was closed within minutes as not valid.
What compelled you to buy something through an ad? Does it often work? My operating assumption is that every click-through internet ad other than major brands (Apple, car makers, etc) is basically a scam.
I've bought shirts I've seen through Facebook ads before. Ads can work, but Facebook is propped up with so many scams these days you have to wonder at what point do they get investigated over it? Amazon has had a similar problem, I've seen loads of threads here over it. I have been fortunate enough that most things I've bought off amazon have been legit.
I've gotten to the point where I consider anything advertised to me to be at least somewhere on the "scam spectrum". With the actual value/scamminess being indicated by a number of factors:
1. Frequency: The more I see ads for something, the more of a scam / less value I believe it to be.
2. Channel: Anything on YouTube or social media is 100% unequivocally a huge scam. To the point where if I think a product is legit or worthwhile, and I happen to see it on YouTube, I will change my mind and not even consider purchasing it.
3. Algorithmic vs. word of mouth: Anything I see that is obviously algorithmically fed to me (like recommendations, "you might like" and "featured" products) increases the scamminess / decreases the value.
It's too bad that legit small businesses trying to crack into a market are collateral damage, and I feel for them, but the ad pond is full of scum and if you're legit and you dive into it, you're going to get scum all over you.
I agree and I would similarly reconsider any purchase if I saw an ad for the product or company online. At this stage it's almost like if you have to advertise then you're not worth it.
How do we find what's worth buying then? Word of mouth, trying things in stores, reviews where they buy the products and are not given them.
I've blocked ads from my online experience for 20 years now, and I don't watch broadcast TV or radio, I live in a small town so I don't see much visual advertising. I feel like I'm at close to ad free as you can be in our ad saturated world. I don't feel that much is different between myself and our neighbours except that their house is full of shite they buy and throw out. None of it qol improving things. And we still have lots of material things, it's not like I spend no money. I guess my point is: what is the actual point of all this advertising anyway if you could remove it and not much changes. Make the world better, give us back our attention by default, we'll still buy stuff!
This has the same answer as when people ask "How do we find dating prospects without the internet?". Same way we did before the internet was a thing ;)
While I suppose I haven't technically seen a recent scam ad pretending to be a major brand, I have seen use of copyrighted art (Disney or anime characters), and Elon Musk's face, to imply they represented a major brand.
Yeah, don't do that. Instagram ads are no different to the WURGLBIXY and HUYTVING and XORMLINAP and other smashed up syllable "brands" on Amazon, except they'll mostly deliver something to you, even if it is shit.
Take any of the images from an Instagram ad. Someone, somewhere, did (probably) build or design the product being sold (a lot come from Kickstarter and may have never launched), but if you search you'll find hundreds or more scams riding on that coattails who will hope to collect and fuck off with your money before IG shuts them down (if they ever do).
I took an IEC power cable that came with a no-name broken printer my folks bought off Amazon. It was rated for the usual North American 120V/15A, but the conductors on the inside were hardly suitable. Measuring with cheap calipers, I reckoned they were good for about 1/10th of that. Similarly dangerous products with any of the generic electronics currently selling on Amazon/Temu/eBay/et al. Poor isolation, poor grounding, underrated wires, incorrect fuses, knock-off ICs, lord knows what kind of chemical treatments and/or lead content; It's as if regulations no longer exist, since there's no longer any fixed target that can be sued to enforce them. Something will need to be done directly to Amazon that will cause them to put a check on these products, but that seems laughably naive in the current political contexts.
Amazon has sold fraudulent fuses that will kill people for years and they don't care. Big Youtubers did videos to try to get Amazon to care. Amazon just does not care if people die because caring would impact their business model. They are straight evil at this point.
Yeah, Amazon literally could not give less of a fuck. Leave a review on the seller, deleted. Leave one on the product, deleted. They say it's because of co-mingling but sorry, that's your hole you dug yourself, Amazon.
And why did you remove the option on returns to say "I think this is counterfeit"? etc. etc.
Full willful head in the sand.
Anything electric/electronic like that, now, I only order from places like Adorama or B&H or the manufacturer. And then actual "higher" end ones like Anker, etc.
"We're just a marketplace". I really need to revisit leaving Amazon as a resolution.
You run the WireGuard app on your computer/phone, tap Connect, and it creates an encrypted tunnel to a small network box (the “FPGA gateway”) at your office or in the cloud. From then on, your apps behave as if you’re on the company network, even if you’re at home or traveling.
Why the FPGA box: Because software implementations are too slow and existing hardware implementations cost too much.
When I was in elementary school in the 70s in Albania, we had some older teachers who wrote z as ᵹ. I don't know where that came from, but it was not part of the official alphabet.
The 100x also is kind of meaningless. 100x compared to what? I can introduce a bug by being careless for 1 minute, discover it in my own tests and spend the next 2 days to figure it out. That's already 960x compared to the time it took me to introduce it.
Even before production there are multi developing stages. An authenticate bug in PoC stage, few hours of engineers. In production, could make your company go bankrupt
"Everything will be OK" - people will succeed in any system. Nobody will ever compare the outputs of the two systems, so nobody will ever know.
Let me instead suggest that one question we should ask is: What kind of students will be successful in the new system? What kinds of students will not?
One interesting thing aspect of the former curriculum is that (IMO) it provides an entry for students who are not entering with a lot of pre-existing knowledge. One of the criticisms of "old school" computer science teaching is that it privileges students who already have exposure to the material... The former curriculum is not the only way to level the playing field, but it certainly does provide a more level playing field for students who might not even be sure about the major.
I will stop with the suggestion that (IMO) pre-existing experience is definitely not the best indicator of future developer quality, so I value a curriculum that does not select for this.
(Caveats: never saw the new curriculum, it could be just fine, there are lots of other ways to accomplish this goal, but still... I am concerned.)
I don't know how much I buy the "leveling the playing field" argument. In my computer architecture class, we learned Sparc assembly. Very few people had encountered much assembly, and definitely not Sparc. At first, it was level, but people with more programming experience quickly adapted since it wasn't actually that different.
I believe this is a fundamental misjudgement of the CS curriculums at MIT and NEU and, apologies for being blunt, probably the worst take on this thread.
The student populations at MIT and NEU, particularly in CS, are fundamentally different. The majority of undergraduates at CS MIT participate in academic research while the vast majority of CS undergraduates at NEU do not (do not let NEU's exceptionally high computer science research output [1] confuse you - the undergraduate and graduate schools are very separate). MIT educates significantly less students than NEU. MIT's algorithms class (6.046) is significantly more rigorous than NEU's equivalent (CS3000) - just compare the publicly available curriculum and problem sets [2,3]. In general, MIT's CS curriculum caters towards the third of the student body that go on to do PhDs, while NEU's CS curriculum caters towards the vast majority of students that beeline towards industry [4,5]. The institutional goals and educational values between MIT and NEU could not be more different. I know all of this to be true because I've spent a significant amount of time at both institutions.
I don't know if NEU will butcher its CS curriculum. I hope not. I guess we'll just have to see.
P.S. it's worth checking out Pyret [4], essentially a functional teaching programming language. The language is mostly written by NEU staff, so I wager NEU's future CS curriculum plans to phase out Racket in favor of Pyret.
Before the current curriculum was implemented, a good portion of students were having difficulty finding jobs and co-ops. After the switch, employers were very eager to hire these students.
The change is not a mere "switch to Python" (which itself is not nothing). It is the replacement of a good curriculum with something mediocre.
Also, I don't know how MIT is doing after the switch.
Why do I remember The C Programming Language book by K&R explaining how to write a version of cdecl? I just checked the second edition of the book and my memory seems to be wrong.
It's not listed as cdecl and (therefore?) not findable in the index, but in chapter 5 - Pointers and Arrays - the book presents the programs dcl and undcl that translate between C declarations and English renderings of them.
reply