Yes, you can get a good job without a college degree.
But if you are competing against someone *with* a college degree for that same job, that person will have an advantage in the selection process. You need to have something on your resume that outweighs that degree that other person (and potentially many other people) have.
Yes, college is too expensive. Yes, college is full of bloated administrative costs.
That changes nothing about the value of the education.

I don't kbnow wnayone who has sucessfuly started a banana stand.

That said, any degree is better than no degree, all other things being equal, when someone is hiring. It shows you can complete tasks, can show dedication, and ostensibly are able to use critical thinking skills.

And what hasn't changed is that people with college degrees have a higher top-level of lifetime earnings than people without a degree. AI is changing everything ofd course, but we are still in the early stages of that.

Oh for fuck's sake, found the snowflake MAGAtard.
"Go woke, go broke!" Like when Barbie, which clearly demonized the male patriarchy (which is actually a thing) made $1.5B worldwide? That kind of broke?

Movies and shows do *worse* when they are less diverse.
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/rele...

Netflix's woes have nothing to do with diversity, racial, gender or otherwise. Their shows are often not engaging, scattered, and just don't have the same kick that theater releases do, which is the whole point.

Horseshit. Artists, authors and musicians have lost cases over and over again on this.
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25...

My best friend from high school is a guy named Morgan Freeman, and he is as white as an albino.

No, *your* argument is garbage, just like this lawsuit. The law makes no distinction between how an artist and an LLM is trained, because it is irrelevant. Courts have repeatedly ruled that this is irrelevant; what matters is what is produced and whether or not its fair use.

Did you know that I did not buy a single copy of a superman reference to train myself to be able to draw superman? Did you know that there's no law that says that somewhere in the past I had to have purchased *some* superman image to be able to train myself to draw it, and in fact I can look at an image of superman anywhere, and draw a copy of it and not break the law by doing so. Hell, I can even trace it. I can even...*copy* it on a copy machine! None of those things are illegal in and of themselves... what I can't do is sell it, pass it off as my own, or distribute it, among many other things. That's not fair use.

Likewise courts have repeatedly found that "ingesting" content to train LLMs is not in and of itself illegal. But if a user produces something and tries to pass off a copyright image as their own, then that *user* could be held liable.

Good luck with that.

So the government does not hold copyrights on the image on a dollar bill. You can actually make a copy of it... but apparently there are regulations that your size has to be different (20% larger or smaller) and your printout can only be one sided. Photoshop probably does not have to legally prevent users from working with a scanned dollar bill, but believes that the pros of banning the use in this way outweighs the cons. But they don't *have" to, legally.

And yet those tools are not illegal. Downloading a copyrighted file is considered not fair use. Making superman in Photoshop is, as long as it is for personal use. Likewise, using midjourney to make superman is the same, and should be considered fair use. If they want to sue the users who put these pictures on the web for others, then by all means they are free to do that, but suing Midjourney is just like suing Adobe. Garbage lawsuit.

Adobe makes Photoshop. Photoshop allows users to create images of Superman. The user can draw Superman, or put into a prompt, "Make this thing look like Superman". In both cases it is the *user* that is initiating the process to create Superman, which DC owns. Should Photoshop be banned?

The anti-AI trolls will pontificate that they are different, but they are not, not in a legal sense. The user was "trained" by watching Superman movies, so the user knows what superman looks like, and can thus draw him.

An LLM was "trained" by watching superman movies, so the LLM knows what superman looks like, and can thus draw him, *when prompted by the user.*
Courts have repeatedly found this to be the case. It's a garbage lawsuit. Throw it in the garbage.

Are dumbass Trump voters tired of all this economic winning? Probably not. Maybe they need to win some more when China completely cuts off the US soybean market, or Europe gangs up and decides to halt imports from the US. Winning!

No one wants to do this. No one wants to have to get online or check their phone multiple times a month to specifically authorize every. single. transaction. That's what a recurring payment is... something where you specifically approve it to recur on a regular basis.

If you use Paypal, for example, for a monthly recurring payment, you can just... not pay. You can choose to just cancel that recurring payment, literally within Paypal on the dashboard.
If you are using a credit card, can't you just contact the card company, and request to cancel monthly transactions and all recurring ones to that vendor?
I mean, they can try to charge you, but if your card does not go through, what can they do? How can they keep you in an ongoing recurring membership if you don't pay for the membership fee?
What am I missing?

I simply responded clear and concisely to what was an unserious question. It sounds like you aren't the sort of person I was responding to, who asked an unserious question.

If you aren't going to hire me because I ask a clarifying question like, "Do you really want to know the answer to how many gas stations there are?" then I in fact would not want to be hired by you.

Spot on.

As I mentioned, there is a right answer, which a quick search will provide. Asking clarifying questions is actually part and parcel of any developer role, and is something that should be happening on a regular basis. That's something *I* look for in an interviewee for my team.

Why the original poster in this would accept "I don't know" as the "correct" answer, rather than the much more accurate "Hang on a sec, lemme look for it oh here it is 160,000." is beyond me.

And I'm sure those employees who made the right choice and walked out of your interviews don't have space for you.
You can have hundreds on your team and still be an asshole who doesn't know how to treat a potential employee with respect and ask them serious questions. That person who walked out had the right answer... that you were not asking a serious question. Perhaps they handled it poorly, but they dodged a bullet if that is how you manage a team, with clown questions thrown out at random.
If you don't treat your potential employees seriously, why should they treat you seriously? Do you run a circus?

If you asked me that question, I would look at you and politely ask for a clarification. "I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstand. Do you really want to know the answer to that question?"

If you said yes, I'd whip out my phone, google it (approx 160,00 - there, I just did it) and give you the answer. The correct answer.

  "I don't know" is not the correct answer; that is akin to answering a jeopardy question with "who are three people who have not been in my living room." It's a glib response that makes the too-clever-by-half interviewer feel smug that they asked a clever question, and that the interviewee paused for a moment to admit their ignorance. But ... and this is important ... it's not the correct answer. If you are asking a serious question.

If you said "no, not really" then I would politely wonder why you would ask me a question you did not want an honest answer to, and then immediately start to question the seriousness of the interview, and whether or not that job is one I would truly want.

If you said, "I really don't care about the correct answer; I'm really trying to determine your approach to problem solving," I would politely point out that "How many gas stations there are really isn't a problem to solve, in my opinion, it's a trivia question, for which a search will provide the correct answer, which is, let's see... 160,000."

Being proud of yourself for being unserious and dishonest to your potential employees is not a sign of professionalism. There's nothing wrong with curveball questions... but you shouldn't be surprised if they give you a curveball answer, should you?