While it is true humor is hard to grasp in text, it has been done that way for millenia in books, and it continued to work as it should. Actually, the fact that it is sometimes misunderstood as non-humor is for the better.
They have a problem with high quality production (more engaging due to production), low value content that proliferates on platforms like YouTube, and would rather see more high value content regardless of production quality, and Internet, in general enabled that if not for people starting to think about (ad supported) revenue first.
If it's tricky for people in software engineering (those still holding a job continue to have big salaries compared to most other industries) to have hobbies they are willing to pay for themselves, it's probably them finding excuses instead or living beyond their means.
Nope, there are still people doing this stuff to share what they are excited about, and they will continue to be people like that.
Economy has nothing to do with this — as mentioned, a lot of this comes out of university students and low rung staff, and they were never best paid.
Probably: I similarly go back to 2400bps modems (9600 and 14400 when dial-up internet showed up here — 33.6k was the time of soft/winmodems other than the ultra expensive US Robotics ;)), and I skipped the .tk domains too — probably already employed and in possession of 10 .org/.net domains by then.
What they did say is that the school sometimes fails students to get more money — supposedly implying that this was not because they did not meet the passing criteria.
This does not preclude failing students when they deserve it.
It is ok to question of what makes them believe they would have passed the exams without this financial motivation for the school, but they were pretty clear IMO.
It is mostly meaningless and tautological claim: even every non-buggy feature of a software system has the potential to be used maliciously; a working system itself too.
Yes, maliciously used features should sometimes drive change (eg. in how to reduce or reduce impact of social engineering attacks), but as a claim it has no value.
I actually do not expect it to die down: as legitimate ones get fixed, LLM-based tools will continue finding other unfixed non-issues repeatedly, and overeager "researchers" will continue reporting them.
I find it extremely uncomfortable when I see LLM-style English from a non-native speaker who generally expresses themselves in an entirely different, but personal, crude way.
It's like the person is gone, and the message is even less clear.
Only one or two of Russian classics were obligatory in Serbia high-schools — yet I devoured them all (esp Dostoeyvsky, Bulgakov, Gogol... Tolstoy a bit less so).
I am sure I'd find them different if I re-read them, but I could relate to characters and their struggles quite easily.
I do not necessarily think that those who wouldn't appreciate them as teenagers would ever appreciate them as adults either — maybe a small percentage would.