The Most Active Threads since Friday

As usual I skipped blogging over the weekend other than the short post about the design update in the forums (something I'll get to later). So, today I am looking at the most active threads since Friday. The leading thread was actually the thread about transgender athletes that I discussed on Thursday. So, I'll skip that one and go to the next most active thread which was titled, "‘I’d rather have a happy kid at UMD than a miserable one at Harvard’" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. The quote in the thread's title is paraphrased from a post in another thread to which the original poster linked. The original poster disagrees with the sentiment expressed in the quote and thinks that kids who get burnt out and are miserable at Harvard would probably feel the same at any middling or better college. The poster cites her own experience as someone who was pushed by her parents and went to a high-pressur high school and believes that the intensity paid off. The original poster also references a thread that was posted in the "Jobs and Careers" forom that was allegedly by a Columbia University student who precisely fits the profile of a miserable Ivy League student. That post was from a well-known troll who alternates between posting in the guise of a student and her disappointed parent. I received a number of reports by posters suspecting the original poster of this thread was also that troll. I am unable to confirm or disprove the suggestion. At any rate, the discussion in this thread goe in a lot of different directions. Some posters agree with the original poster that pushing children to succeed can benefit them. Others agree that kids who are over-stressed or depressed in due to the pressure of their high schools will probably continue to suffer from those conditions whether they attend Harvard or a lower-ranked school. But many posters argue that pressure on kids that results in depression and other ill effects is not helpful. If the same kid who is miserable at Harvard will also be miserable at a state university, it does not excuse putting pressure on kids. In fact the opposite is true. It is an indictment of that practice. Another poster contends that developing a strong sense of self, having fun, and making friends is more important to a child's future well-being than attending any particular college. The point being that, yes, a damaged child will be damaged regardless of the university they attend, so don't damage them in the first place. Rather allow them to attend to their current and future mental health rather than placing all effort and hope on getting into Harvard. Nothing can dissuade the original poster, however, who continues to reiterate her position throughout the thread.

Next was another thread that was posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As you will see, that is a trend for today's topics. This one was titled, "Do people who do PhDs realize that they aren’t worth the time?". The original poster argues that pursuing ph.d program is a waste of time and money and that doctoral graduates end up making the same salary that they could have made directly after finishing undergrad studies. As you can imagine given our well-educated userbase, this sentiment did not go over well. Posters immediately post evidence that the original poster's assumption about salaries are not well-founded. I'll just come out and say that the original poster is a blow hard who has about as much authority as a drunk guy in a bar. In a follow-up post he claims that most of those with doctorates are "idiots & unemployable" in the "real world". When it is clear that he is losing the debate, he starts spouting off about student loan forgiveness. He seems convinced that anyone enrolled in a doctoral program is already encumbered with significant student loan debt, something that is not necessarily true. Like many partipants in this forum, he is convinced that they only reason to pursue higher education is to increase potential earnings. He sees no inherent value in knowledge in and of itself. To the contrary, he offers outright disdain for the idea. I've said before that the easiest way to provoke a long thread is to say so many things wrong in your original post that nobody can stop themselves from replying. This is a nearly text book example that doesn't even require a doctoral degree to understand as such. In addition to disputing the original poster's salary assumptions, posters challenge his understanding of the funding available for post-graduate degrees, the time commitment required for a doctoral degree, and earning potential of students while pursuing their degrees. Most of all, posters reject his notion that it is not possible to get enjoyment from an intellectually-filling pursuit and still earn enough for a comfortable living.

Next was a thread that I started myself titled, "New Responsive Design for DCUM" and posted in the "Website Feedback" forum. The longest standing and most frequently-made compliant about DCUM was that it was not optimized for mobile devices. We repeatedly receive requests for an app or a website designed for phones. Almost 8 years ago, I developed a responsive design — webpages that adapt to the size of the device being used to view them — and rolled it out for our users. We were met with an avalanche of complaints as well as some performance problems, so I went back to the original design after a couple of days. As the years past, the requests for a mobile design continued. Moroever, Google's search system began "punishing" us due to poor mobile usability. That resulted in fewer referrals from Google and less traffic overall. Believing that I had resolved many of the issues of the previous effort, I made another attempt last week. I first deployed the design in a beta environment and invited users to test and provide feedback. I knew from our prior experience that very few users would actually do this, but it was a way to get rid of the low-hanging fruit in terms of issues. Then, Saturday morning, we went live. I was prepared for lots of complaints and, indeed as this thread demonstrates, there were lots of complaints. I deployed the new design on Saturday morning so that I would have two full days to resolve problems before traffic rose this morning. Hopefully, I have been able to address the most significant issues. As this thread shows, opinion about the new design is very divided. Some posters — especially those using phones — love the design. Others hate it. Some of the complaints are understandable, even if they are things I can't or wont't fix. Other posters describe experiences that I am unable to understand because they are nothing like I've encountered. With users accessing the site with a large variety of devices, often configured in unconventional ways, it is not possible to prepare for every user's experience. One lesson from last time is that some users refuse to accept change no mater what. For those users, I am contining to maintain the old design in a separate instance. I am hoping that over time this will become unnecessary but we will see.

The final thread at which I'll look today is another one from the "College and University Discussion" forum. This one is titled, "Has this board missed the huge contraction in tech?". The original poster complains that people still push computer science and other majors for "big tech" jobs while large tech companies such as Facebook, Amazon, and Google have undergone major layoffs. The original poster claims that demand is plummeting and salaries are dropping. A number of posters agree with the original poster. Others, however, suggest that focusing solely on the large tech companies doesn't give an accurate picture of the job environment. Moreover, tech majors, even within the computer science field itself, have lots of variation. Some specialties do better than others. Moreover, while these degrees may not provide as many opportunties as they might have once have, they are still often better than the alternatives. There is also a conception — generally among those not well-versed in computers themselves — that artificial intelligence will replace many computer jobs. This notion is strongly disputed in the thread, most often by those who are knowledgable about computers. A post by one poster that really resonated with me argued in favor of pursuing studies in fields that you enjoy rather than based on what you think will earn money. The poster noted that anyone pursuing an English degree, for instance, was doing something they loved and there are so few English majors that they will likely end up with good opportunties. Similarly, computer science students who really love the field will probably end up doing pretty well. Those who might be in trouble are those who choose computer science in the interest of money rather than due to enjoyment of it. They may be able to get good grades and even a decent job, but they will have a difficult time rising in an environment in which those with a natural passion will often dominate. While AI was not the main topic of the thread, I'll take this opportunity to rant about it. I'm stealing most of this from the blogger Atrios. As he said, we expect machines to be perfect. We wouldn't put up with calculators that only provide the correct result 90% of the time. Currently, AI in the form of ChatGPT and the like is far less perfect than that. As any programmer can tell you, it is more difficult to debug someone else's code than to write your own. So, I don't think there is a short-term future for AI devices that produce error-filled code and, if there is, there will be an even bigger field for those capable of fixing such code. But what AI is currently good at is bluffing people into thinking that it knows what it is talking about even when it doesn't. There are a bunch of jobs filled by people for whom that is their primary skill. Those are the folks who should be worried.