More specific questions would help. The biggest changes I notice are related to Internet and communication. The fundamentals were about the same. Now there's more focus on convenience, less on doing things yourself. I mean the store didn't sell bags of pre-grated cheese and pre-shredded lettuce - those things would have seemed stupid (well I mean they still are, but somehow they don't seem like it).
They don't have to collect them as in saving them, they just have to collect information about activity that would interest marketers who buy the data. "Searched for dishwashers"... "Ordered dishwasher"...
Then the marketers could process the data and go, Lovable Sidekick searched for dishwashers but didn't buy one, maybe he's still looking, let's send him ads for dishwashers. Or, Lovable Sidekick bought a dishwasher, let's not waste ad impressions showing him dishwasher ads, let's show ads for dishwasher detergent. I mean, if I were part of that whole circus that's how I would try to approach it.
One blames a woman for dressing like a slut, the other blames a programmer for not doing thorough work. Both are victim shaming that ignore the attack itself. Simply scoffing at the comparison or at me isn't having a serious conversation, it's just monkey-puppet waving.
I don't see why not though - if they know which urls I visit, they should know about order confirmations. If companies are sharing all my browsing patterns why wouldn't they share what I bought?
Only to an outsider. Starting with an example and modifying it is a very standard, time-honored programming practice that has never been demonized that I know of. In fact it's the norm for many contractors, who get paid for fast turnover and hugely benefit from taking an existing web page, module, etc. that's similar to their goal and changing it, rather than starting from scratch. The idea isn't to take credit, it's to get the work done.
I learned to code from other people too. Everybody learns to do everything from other people. Making that an argument against AI is just silly. That's my main problem with AI hate - it demonizes practices that are perfectly acceptable when we do them without using AI. A lot of it is also misdirected - for example, AI doesn't fire people, clueless managers fire people because they stupidly think AI is their ticket to career advancement. It's like blaming a saw for cutting in the wrong place. AI hate is really the hollowest, emptiest crusade I've ever seen. The only valid arguments I know of are about the excessive resources it uses - which is true of a lot of other things (golf courses in the desert for example). But to me the ethical passion just feels manufactured, as if people desperately need one more thing to hate.
Raised Catholic, as in Catholic schools all the way through high school. In high school I started learning about other religions, especially ancient ones, and Christianity started looking like just another example of mythology. The central belief that Jesus "died for our sins" is based on the ancient idea of using sacrifices to gain favor with the gods. The "holy trinity" aspect was what really boggled my mind. God sends his Son (i.e. himself) to Earth and lets the Romans execute him, thereby sacrificing himself - to himself - to persuade himself to forgive humans for Original Sin - which we didn't even commit, it supposedly happened in the Garden of Even, long before we were born.
Somehow a Supreme Being intelligent enough to create the whole universe decided a sin committed by an ancestor should bar the human race from eternal salvation. Even as I type this I'm still amazed people can actually believe that nonsense, but to ancient people it did make sense. Back then whole families were often punished for the misdeeds of a family member. This is where we got the concept of disowning somebody - casting them out of the family was a declaration that the family wasn't responsible for that screwup's actions anymore. It was self-defense against getting everybody thrown in prison or exiled to the desert. But I don't think most religious people bother to question their indoctrination or reduce it to essentials. Maybe they're afraid if they think about it too much it means the Devil is trying to steal their soul, I don't know. It just seems childishly silly to me.
Most of the people I've met in IT seem a lot more intelligent than average - clearly better analytical skills, can keep more details in their heads, understand complex subjects more quickly, etc - which makes sense because you kind of have to be that way to do the work.
Yes, when I was doing community college theatre there were two guys - best friends - who were the dumbest fucking idiots I've ever encountered in the wild. It was years before Dumb and Dumber came out or I would have called them that. Really good natured, happy-go-lucky guys. but they didn't have six brain cells between them. Over the few months I knew them their friendship fell apart when Moron A beat up Moron B for getting him fired from Taco Bell where they both worked. I can no longer remember any specific stories about dumb things they did, cuz it was decades ago, only that it was always hard to explain anything to them, and I wasn't the only person who had this problem. They seemed normal in social situations, not like they were mentally impaired or high or anything, just not much going on under the hood.
If they have all this marketing intel about me why do they deluge me with ads for major appliances right after I buy them? I mean how likely am I gonna want another dishwasher the same week?
Watchoo talkin' bout?