The Criminalization of Everyday Life - <AUTHOR> http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175781/ <comment><USER2> I wish people would move beyond 1984 and quote more Foucault's Discipline & Punishment [1]. There is a much deeper-rooted problem in society than mass surveillance or militarization of police. It's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance. We accept and welcome our controllers. Foucault wrote about the effects of prisoner mindset in society in the 1960-70s. Our subjugation and tolerance to authoritarianism is very widespread and not limited to just police.

We're not just afraid to be anti-authoritative, we're institutionalized since our birth in schools and the concept of control is in embedded in every aspect of life (such as in language found in politics, school work, or newspapers).

Mass-surveillance is just a more direct implementation of "panopticon" [2] applied to everyday life, existing at all times. Having committed a crime is no longer the requirement to be imprisoned, whether physically or mentally.

[http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-Birth-Prison- Vintage...](http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-Birth-Prison-Vintage- ebook/dp/B007OLYO7I/)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon)

<comment><USER3> _quote more Foucault 's Discipline & Punishment_

Foucault's style is (possibly deliberately) obtuse, and his knowledge of history dubious at best, per Keith Windschuttle's book _The Killing of History_ : [http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists- Murderin...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Killing-History-Theorists- Murdering/dp/1893554120?ie=UTF8&tag=thstsst-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957) .

 _It 's the question of why we all let this happen without any resistance_

Because it's easy, because _most of the time_ it doesn't affect us, and because it's hard for one voter to fix the problem. Bryan Caplan's _The Myth of the Rational Voter_ is very good on this subject. Most people (and voters) don't even know how many Senators their state has, or their terms, let alone why complex subjects like privacy are important. Based on Caplan's book, I think ignorance is a more reasonable explanation than a fear of being anti- authoritarian or an institutionalized mindset.

<comment><USER4> That critique of Foucault is much too cheap. To any halfway competent theory hacker, it will sound like "But Python uses significant whitespace, and Guido van Rossum's knowledge of language design is dubious at best." It's hard to base a serious discussion on that type of argument.

To me, one of the major takeaways from Foucault is his renouncement of the "repression hypothesis". In a nutshell, he proposes to understand power not as a binary relation between oppressors and the oppressed, but as a much more molecular system that spans all sectors of society, and whose modus operandi is not primarily repression, but rather motivation (making someone speak, articulate desires, etc).

Deleuze's "Postscript on the Societies of Control", ([https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf](https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf), also linked a bit further down), written in the late 1980s, can serve as a very lucid short introduction to (and escalation of) that idea. Worth the read, it's really just five pages.

<comment><USER5> Foucault is SmallTalk. Tangentially inspirational, but mostly useless in modern practice.

Deleuze's postscript... "metastable states coexisting in one and the same, like a universal system of deformation."

That's your counter-argument?

<comment><USER6> > _Foucault is SmallTalk. Tangentially inspirational, but mostly useless in > modern practice._

I don't think you can categorize a philosopher/historian in such crude terms. For one, this pressuposes that there's some "modern practice" of history, which makes it incompatible or difficult for practical reasons to use Foucault's theory anymore. That's not the case in the least -- modern academic discourse in such matters refers to Foucault all the time.

(And even if the comparison was apt, I'd still take SmallTalk over, say, Java that replaced it, any time of day).

> _That 's your counter-argument?_

No, his counter-argument is a lucid essay, of which you extracted, out of context (and cut in half), a small, non characteristic, phrase that you find troubling. Might as well extract some oneliner from type theory full of heavy math notation to "prove" that Haskell is impossible to learn.

In fact, the paragraph the excerpt belongs to is crystal clear, wether you agree with it's contents or not.

What he says in that part is that in older societies (those based on disclipline), a person moved from one place of instilling discipline to the other (from school, to army service, to vocational education, to the factory, etc). In contrast to that, in modern societies, all those distinct places and stages have been merged (the school is also like a prison, the workplace is also like the army, etc).

<comment><USER7> Calling Deleuze lucid is the opposite of the truth: his use of language is obfuscatory and arcane.

<comment><USER8> Deleuze by himself is actually very straightforward, I bet you're speaking of his work with Guattari.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I can't say I'm exactly surprised. If you ran a police department, you're not about to turn down a free tank -- I mean, how cool is that, toys for the boys?!?!

What's bothersome is that a police department is _allowed_ to do this. That DoD rules don't prohibit selling/giving military equipment to police departments. That state legislatures don't prohibit it. A police department, like any organization, is always going to amass all the power/capability it can. Where are the people who are supposed to be limiting and regulating it?

<comment><USER10> Whats wrong with a police department having a tank? I'd say it's a waste of money, but if it's completely free there's no downside.

<comment><USER11> It's not completely free. They need to pay to store it, insure it, run it. They need to have staff (diverted from their other tasks) to maintain it and operate it and bureaucrat it.

There's a hit to their public image too. When your home or car is burgled you don't want to see a tank.

And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used. Ignoring "bad guys" for a moment, shooting innocent dogs of innocent people is probably a bad thing. Shooting innocent bystanders is probably a bad thing.

[http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we- love...](http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/05/nypd-baby-you-know-we-love-you-why- do-you-make-us-angry-like-that/)

Obvious Popehat bias, but still, it's pretty alarming.

<comment><USER10> >It's not completely free.

True but it's really no different than a truck or existing police vehicles cost-wise. And it's free. In fact it looks pretty similar to police vehicles already in use: [http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/DQFJESy.jpg)

>And, as toomuchtodo hints at, heavily arming a police force leads to those guns being used.

Perhaps, but this is a vehicle, not a gun. It's just a big bullet proof truck.

<comment><USER12> Nothing is ever free, it's paid for at some point. In this case, it's our tax dollars, which could be spent on something more worthy. I know for my state, if I could direct all that money towards trade programs for prisons, I think that would be a much better investment towards serving the same goals, even if it takes longer to pay out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When I read something like this, I always think back to when I would see some tinfoil-hat type ranting on Usenet 20 years ago about the growing surveillance/police state in America. It was generally eye-rolling or unintentionally hilarious stuff.

What's depressing is that it's starting to look like they were right.

<comment><USER14> The real tinfoil types believe that the government cloud research facility in Alaska controls the weather globally and can cause earthquakes and tsunamis on command. We don't have any indication to believe _that 's_ true yet.

<comment><USER13> True; there are the tinfoil hat types that believe that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, and then there are those that believe Bigfoot killed Kennedy with the mind powers he learned from the Lizard People of Zeta Reticuli B.

Edit: from the downvotes, I can only assume that I've offended the Bigfoot fans.

<comment><USER15> "from the downvotes, I can only assume"

Separately, as a karma strategy, it makes sense to upvote something that you reply to (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) as it tends to make your reply higher up (because the parent comment is higher up) and get more visibility which in theory should result in more karma.

<comment><USER16> I do this, but I justify it by thinking that the thread was important enough to me to reply to, so I should vote. I don't care about karma, but I'm more likely to get replies, or so I hope.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If every police station in the country is equipped with military-grade weapons and vehicles, what happens in the event of despotic leadership?

Suppose someone rises to power with little regard for legislative oversight and activates the sleeping military at home. It might start with a real (or faked) terror event coordinated across several major cities. It wouldn't take much at all, 5-10 cities, and suddenly: 1\. Internet & cell communications are shut down 2\. a national state of emergency is declared 3\. A curfew is issued 4\. Dissidents are squashed via a military police force with little recourse themselves. 5\. Everyone is required to have location-aware implants "for safety."

With a little fear, a government could take full, permanent control of their citizens via aggressive laws and more aggressive enforcers. Would it even take two weeks?

<comment><USER18> Perhaps I'm naive, but I never understood why a despotic US President would need all of these weapons and vehicles. I mean, they're a nice convenience, but they're complete unnecessary for a takeover.

My thought would be that you just need the presidency and maybe six high ranking military officers. You then declare a presidential address where you announce that you're declaring yourself dictator for life. If anyone objects, you'll nuke Moscow. Of course, Russia will respond by annihilating the entire US, so objecting to the take over is essentially a death sentence.

Let the citizens have their guns. They can't shoot an ICBM.

<comment><USER19> Sounds like a B-movie plot.

The problem is, the newly-appointed tyrant would need everyone in the military to play along with the blackmail. All it would take is a few rogue Air Force pilots to shoot down that ICBM.

<comment><USER20> How on earth is an Air Force pilot going to shoot down an ICBM? A Minuteman III can reach speeds of 15,000mph.

<comment><USER21> With magical patriot fuel that provides thrust relative to the amount of ridiculous drama that has thus far been painted on the stupid propaganda movie reel. Likely when the meaningless death of the goofy but loveable sidekick has been concluded somehow and the ex quarterback pilot jock is sufficiently despairing and enraged at the same time while his high school sweetheart is crying over said death in some sterile but tense government control room and he can hear her on comms as he spurts out his last gasp of impotent rage doing the actually impossible thing and making watching vaccuous halfwit proles feel proud to be American.

Queue complete bullshit speech by sufficiently aristocratic looking political figure about lessons hard learned and tests successfully overcome.

Swelling music, much tribalism, wow.

Roll credits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> WOW! The most shocking linked article is the kids who got arrested for waiting for the bus. They were excepted to plea bargain. That's right, the charges weren't dropped!!!!!!

edit the DA dismissed the charges but the police chief thinks the arrest was justified.

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/04/charges...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/04/charges- against-ny-teens-will-be-dismissed/3868097/)

Interview with the coach (he seems like a really nice guy):

[http://www.infowars.com/kids-arrested-waiting-for-school- bus...](http://www.infowars.com/kids-arrested-waiting-for-school-bus/)

<comment><USER23> Ok... that one is crazy.

Obey the cop and get suspended... or obey the teacher and go to jail.

Just leaving these kids in no-win situations. SOMEONE has to be willing to listen and hear the kids out.

Either the cop has to hear them out, and then say "OK, well I'll just keep an eye on you until your teacher comes."

Or the teacher has to hear them out, and then say "Well, OK, it was my fault for telling you guys to stand there so I'm not going to suspend anyone this time."

But you can't put kids in a situation like that and then say... "It's YOUR fault!"

That's insanity. This wasn't ANY of these kids' fault.

<comment><USER22> Did you see the interview with the coach? He showed up, identified himself, said these kids were in the right place and they were going to a basketball game all while speaking very respecfully and the cops said if he didn't leave the coach was going to jail too! Apparently being out in public is illegal.

They were going to a basketball game not school so they probably wouldn't get suspended but they were expected to be there. Plus they wanted to be there. It was according to the coach the normal place they caught the bus for games.

<comment><USER24> _> >Apparently being out in public is illegal._

Only if you're black.

<comment><USER25> You're thinking _1900 's_ style. It's the 2000's now and _anyone_ can be deemed 'illegal'. If you look poor that is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a common way that a totalitarian state can be implemented on top of an apparent democratic republic: pass so many laws (and contradictory / complex laws) that anyone can be found guilty of something, then enforce the law selectively.

<comment><USER27> Yep. We've had something like that in Eastern Europe during the communist era.

<comment><USER28> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

(From Atlas Shrugged -- Damn, it's bad when I of all people am quoting Ayn Rand).

<comment><USER29> What's wrong with Ayn Rand?

<comment><USER30> Generally, people don't like her for lacking 'heart'. However, most people don't actually understand her message, nor do they appreciate her definition of selfishness.

It's very unfortunate because her writings were on the spot on about human behavior.

<comment><USER31> Rand is difficult for many people because her philosophy is essentially standalone; take it all or take none of it. You cannot really take one small lesson of Rand on its own - it always comes tightly bound to the premises it is derived from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> >"in an era of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and mass killings in schools, police agencies need to be ready for whatever comes their way..."

There has always been terrorism in the United States. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)

As well as mass shootings. [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass- shootings-m...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings- mother-jones-full-data)

This current "era" isn't defined by the number or scale of these tragedies but by institutions' and the public's reaction to them. If we want to protect the lives and welfare of the average U.S. citizen our money and efforts would be better spent tackling some of the less newsworthy health issues.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_d...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death#Leading_causes_in_the_United_States)

Also the time frame of the Sandy Hook Shooting was extremely brief. The shooter was believed to enter the school around 9:30 the first 911 call was made at 9:35 and the last shot heard was at 9:40 and the police enter at 9:44. The MRAP and other military artillery obviously wouldn't have made a difference due to time frame of the tragedy.

</comment><comment><USER33> The fact that this is being instigated by the federal government makes me suspect that this is deliberate planning for the long-term consequences of american societal breakdown, for when the war on drugs isn't enough to control the ever-growing underclass anymore.

Does this kind of thinking still place me firmly with the tinfoil contingent?

<comment><USER34> Having a so called police force like this _is_ societal breakdown.

To me, current US policing looks much like how the Brits patrolled Northern Ireland back in the day, with the army. Only thing the US is missing is check points and road blocks. Don't kid yourselves, the US does not have a police force, it has a domestic army.

Only hope Americans have is in the individuals who wear the uniform. Would American uniformed son and daughters, mothers and fathers turn on non uniformed Americans?

On the other hand.... If the main government got all evil and what not, couldn't this local police force defend the people with all this hardware? Aren't they all sort of independent, under local state or what ever control? I mean, it we are talking revolution and all that, its not a given who side the police would be on, is it?

<comment><USER35> An interesting realisation in Northern Ireland in the mid-1970s was that Army operations had to be brought back under the umbrella of civilian authority.

From 1969 to 1977 the Army in NI basically operated independently of the constabulary, with only informal liaison and co-ordination, whilst pursuing their primary mission.

But from then onwards the Army was seconded to Security Co-ordinating Commission and was re-orientated towards support of the policeman on the beat.

The UK Government had realised that soldiers having unregulated police-like powers over people was counter-productive, and the response was to re- establish the 'primacy of the constabulary' to give some faith in the justice system. If you were arrested, it was by a police officer with his number visible on his lapel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This article is not about police tanks. (Even though it's horrifying that if the tanks were about to roll into America's equivalent of Tianeman Square, our American Tank Man would just be tasered, at best.)

This article is about the prison/police system becoming the fundamental axis of civil society. Schools are run like prisons, and increasingly with police presence. Minority groups are, as always, increasingly targeted for harassment and neutralization. If you get on the radar of the police state, you and your family will be hounded forever. If you are imprisoned, it's more likely than not that you'll be held in solitary confinement.

The article doesn't seem to answer the question I wish I knew the answer to -- how did we get here? What happened that made the United States this way? Was it always like this, behind the curtains, just a nest of HUAACs and J Edgar Hoovers?

Well, now the J Edgar Hoover of 2013 knows everything about everyone, he can arrest anyone for any reason at any time, and he can't be opposed by any means I'm aware of. That iconic picture of a hippy putting a flower in the barrel of a riot cop's gun could never happen today -- as soon as the hippy reached for the gun I'm sure his head would be blown off.

</comment><comment><USER37> Used to be military surplus stores would acquire military surplus and sell them to an amused and subsequently harmless citizenry. All that old equipment has to go _somewhere_ ; now such civilian possession is prohibited (even used Humvees (basically just off-road cars) cannot, by law, be sold to the public), it ends up routed to the only group legally allowed to have it and wants it: police. In the meantime, stores that sold military surplus have adapted by selling military-like knockoff gear, and would-be buyers are pumping money into the fast-growing "tactical gear" market.

Fact is, if all this military equipment were sold on open market, no harm would come of it. Used to be available and wasn't a problem then, and the rather large paramilitary equipment market isn't a problem now. Question is: why is the government so afraid of its own citizens possessing such gear?

<comment><USER38> > Question is: why is the government so afraid of its own citizens possessing > such gear?

Is that the right question, considering that the tactical gear market is allowed to exist? I'm apparently too lazy to do it, but it would probably be instructive to look at the history of that ban on military-to-citizen sales.

<comment><USER37> Short version:

In 1934, machineguns & "destructive devices" were hit with a $200 "transfer tax" and subject to tight paperwork regulations and severe penalties for violations. Given the products in question cost around $50, and the tax equaled some $3000 in today's US$, it was practically a ban. Inflation brought the tax down to affordable (cough) levels today.

In 1986, possession/manufacture of new machineguns was banned outright. Old ones could still be owned & transferred, but between the severely limited supply and accumulated $200 taxes, prices have increased about 25x over what they would cost unrestricted, making them desirable for investment and undesirable for mundane use.

When the US Army transitioned to "Humvees" replacing Jeeps, the contract included a clause prohibiting resale to civilians. Likewise other equipment cannot be resold, not so much by law but by contract.

As it is, the tactical gear market is "allowed" to exist mainly because there isn't much way to legally prohibit it. Most such gear is objectively indistinguishable from other common products (clothing, camping equipment, radios, hunting gear); the differences are significant in specialized use but nowhere near enough to be codified in law. As demonstrated during the now- expired 10-year "assault weapons ban", the marketplace will come up with all kinds of creative solutions to bridge any gaps caused by prohibition (10 round limit? get subcompact pistols or .50-caliber semi-auto rifles. Weight limits? superlight plastic/carbon-fiber guns.)

<comment><USER38> > When the US Army transitioned to "Humvees" replacing Jeeps, the contract > included a clause prohibiting resale to civilians. Likewise other equipment > cannot be resold, not so much by law but by contract.

Do you know why this is? It sounds more like economic protectionism than a desire to keep them out of the hands of civilians.

<comment><USER37> Confluence of both? Sometimes disparate goals make for good symbiosis.

BTW: MREs ("meals ready to eat") are likewise restricted, marked with warnings about resale.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What a depressing article(s). Our reality is only going to get worse since there is little we can (or have the will to) do. At least in the Ukraine people are really contemplating change. Here we watch our football and our shows and fawn over celebrities and nothing changes.

<comment><USER40> Yeah, but in Ukraine, they're digging themselves out of a much deeper hole. If they manage to get accepted in the EU, a lot of them would emigrate west. USA citizens don't have that option. There isn't a "west" for someone from the USA to emigrate to. USA _is_ the west.

You shouldn't compare your corruption with Ukraine's or other Soviet Bloc countries'. Those people have a place to run to, as hard as getting there is. You have nowhere to run.

<comment><USER41> There's plenty of Western countries that are less screwed up than the US.

<comment><USER42> For example? What's involved for a citizen of the United States who would like to settle in one of those countries permanently?

<comment><USER41> I know plenty of US citizens that have emigrated to Canada, via school or work related methods. It's not particularly hard, it just takes time for the paperwork to clear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is a continuation of the military industrial complex. There aren't enough wars, but companies that supply the military still need to make money. So they make so much equipment that the DoD needs to give their completely usable equipment away for free.

This page should make any U.S. taxpayer sick and any non-U.S. citizen worried:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures)

<comment><USER44> The more things change the more they stay the same. [https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket](https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I have felt we have too many laws and over zealous cops for some time now. I guess I'm old--I was born in 1972, but I can assure you; things were not like it has been in the last twenty years. I started noticing a change in the late 80's and it's(a over regulated society, cops who abuse the system) just gotten worse. If Jesus Christ reappeared he would most likely be arrested for indecency. Ticketed for fishing without license. Arrested for loitering. Arrested for holding an event without a permit. Ticketed for sleeping in someone manger, without written consent. It's really not funny when you get an expensive ticket for no reason. I have thought about this and a solution; tie all fines to income, and require all Cruisers to be wired with 24/7 cams. This is a good website, but I sometimes wonder if I just blowing smoke, and racking up clicks for a already Rich Dude? Some of these topics are so important they deserve their own webpage?

<comment><USER46> _If Jesus Christ reappeared he would most likely be..._

All those crimes?! Jeeze, its sounds like they'd friggin' crucify him...

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> "If you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to fear (at least from the cops)" is looking stupider every day.

<comment><USER48> Not being from the states I've only seen this through documentaries and expose shows... but to me its just seems to be the police are starting to treat everybody the way minorities have said they have been treated for decades.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I just find it so incredible that a hospital can bill you for a rectal cavity search ordered by police/judge. Honestly I think my mind is experiencing some sort of race condition as I try to pick a word that accurately describes my incredulity about this. Ughhhhhh

<comment><USER50> I share your sentiment, but trying to analyze objectively the entire scenario from different angles I find acceptable for the subject being searched to pay the bill if he is found guilty (which is hiding illegal stuff in his body). I don't agree with the shaky grounds used by the law enforcement to bring up the body search though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Surprised this didn't get any comments. It's a good reason to leave (or not move to) the US, or increasingly, the UK.

<comment><USER52> Do you think it is better anywhere?

<comment><USER53> Canada?

<comment><USER54> Satan's Little Helper?

The country that seems to simply enacts laws and legislation that just mirror the US so they look like good little friends?

The country that assists the NSA as needed?

That Canada?

<comment><USER41> The general attitude, and the implications of everyone having health care, are far better. The police in general have a far friendlier disposition. It's not all about authority and the "listen to me I'm the coach/sergeant" sports- talk/military-talk mentality. There is also no real race issue the way African Americans experience in the US (a systematic, paranoid, aggressive marginalization of a large section of society).

And there certainly isn't anything like the militarization of the police like there is in the US, which is the focus of this article.

<comment> r-s We have major race issues with Natives, nobody wants to talk about it though.

<comment><USER41> Please see my reply to mhurron above (I can't copy paste it because HN deletes it as spam)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Appropriate, seeing as how Kent State is in Ohio, too. Clearly, they learned their lessons in Ohio: shoot students first, ask questions later.

<comment><USER56> I was reminded of this, too, and took it as a reminder that the late 60s were not always as peaceful as the article's author would have it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> What's striking is the correlation between excessive police tactics and enforcement of victimless crimes.

From a right libertarian point of view, it is the government's responsibility to protect your rights, not to protect you.

From a left libertarian point of view, it is the government's responsibility to demonstrate that the good of enforcing a law outweighs the loss of individual freedom and other harm of enforcing it.

Drugs, immigration, fail those tests. Many sex crimes fail those tests. Seatbelt laws probably fail.

The police have to be so aggressive about these things because they never lent themselves to enforcement in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER58> One of the underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution is the Bill Of Rights, one of which states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

People go bouncing off the wall around this issue as if it were one having solely to do with owning guns, but the real purpose is arranging the real power in the government. The people reserve and are ultimately responsible for the use of lethal force in the United States. They can delegate that power to the government for certain things, like a defense department or law enforcement, but at the end of the day, it's everybody carrying guns that are responsible for social order. At least that's the way it was set up.

As we've drifted away from that principle, by assigning more and more powers to the defense department and police agencies, (gun control is part of this but not the only part), those folks have quite naturally started viewing themselves as the privileged few to hold the power to make things go boom. Then we got rid of the volunteer military, further separating the mass of the population from the things carrying lethal force.

So nowadays, if you want to become a specialist in the application of power tools to destroy people and things, you pick one of a few different career paths and become one of the chosen few. This is a VERY recent development. Not 50 years ago it was commonplace to know people who could operate machine guns, explosives, and drive tanks around. To those folks, cops were just another working Joe like them except they wore a badge. On the other side, cops viewed the population as a trained asset to have and use in time of crisis. It was not unusual to consider gathering up as many armed men as necessary from an area to conduct police operations.

But the professionals got involved, and having that kind of power was viewed as a terribly complicated responsibility that the average guy couldn't handle. This created a wall in society. On both sides now, it's us against them. We need MRAPS because, hell, _anything_ can happen, and there's just a few of us cops in this county. We are no longer all in it together. It's not like if AQ comes knocking we can knock on doors and ask for help.

This is a self-fulfilling feedback loop: as the police arm themselves more and more with special gear, the average person really can't operate it. So even more specialized training is required. Same goes for military gear, where this divide originated.

I would suggest that what we need is some sort of ready reserve system where everybody is trained at reaching 18 on how to safely use most all common forms of police and military gear. I'd further suggest that local police departments be required to have a certain percentage of their patrols as civilian ride- alongs.

There are a lot of things that can be done here, and we don't have to argue gun control to make progress. But I think we _do_ need an understanding of how we got here in the first place. This is a trend that has been a long time coming. The War On Terror just exacerbated it.

<comment><USER59> Thank you for the patient post.

People will probably despise me for this, but why don't we have compulsory military duty in the U.S. like other countries?

It would give people some discipline. It would discourage us from acting arrogant, "lol! we should bomb them!" It would give people some skills. If it was equally applied, no one would have any disadvantage. It would make people feel much more secure, without delegating their security to others.

The real scourge is that in order to be economically competitive, we must all hyper-specialize and become experts in a single, narrow area. We can no longer lucidly judge others b/c we have less in common with one another.

A work buddy said in the 1950s in the U.S., teenagers would hang out with the police. He distinctly remembers hanging out in a police car, smoking marijuana, while the cops chided him because he said he couldn't afford real tobacco to smoke. I want to get back to that world. I want to provoke other nations less, so we're no longer a target of terrorism. I want us to get back to the business of making our lives leisurely through technology, rather than more awesome. "More awesome" means were doing more with the same energy as we exerted in the industrial revolution. I'd much rather see us getting less done with less energy.

<comment><USER29> Jesus, no it would not!

It would lead to the US military becoming way too large, and given the prowess in media propaganda, you'll get tens of millions of people with a highly militaristic mindset with nothing to do - think current soldier worshipping x10.

<comment><USER60> I disagree. The current volunteer-only military service means that only people with that mindset join in the first place. If there were compulsory military service, that would mean everyone else, regular people with no desire for glory/etc would be in there too. Look at what happened during Vietnam. There was such drastic anti-war sentiment specifically because anyone could be drafted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Americans really should learn more about the Soviet KGB and its predecessor, the NKVD, and how they ran a campaign of terror against citizens who did little more than have a different opinion of how the country should be run. Because now that America no longer compares itself to the Soviet Union, this is the kind of police state that is being constructed in the USA.

Meanwhile, in Russia, the place where the Soviet system used to be, they have moved in the opposite direction and dismantled most of the police state. In Russia people have more personal freedoms with respect to the state than they do in the USA. Of course one unfortunate side effect of so much freedom is that there was a great increase in corruption and the growth of the oligarchs after the fall of the Soviet Union. But Russia is dealing with this step by step, reducing corruption and reigning in the oligarchs. Their ideal seems to be the USA of the 1960s or 70s, but not the USA of today.

<comment><USER62> >In Russia people have more personal freedoms with respect to the state than they do in the USA.

How it is possible for someone to reach such a stupendous level of confusion boggles the mind. Even if the Russian propaganda minister were to make such a declaration he surely isn't deluded enough to believe it to be true.

<comment><USER61> Well, I speak Russian fluently (and therefore can follow the Russian media/Internet) and I have visited the country 3 times. In addition I have visited another ex-Soviet country, Ukraine, over a dozen times. You really have to go to these places to understand them, and preferably have some level of competence in the language so that you can speak to a variety of people, not just some egotistic activist that gets his jollies out of manipulating foreign media.

<comment><USER62> I have spoken to Ukrainians and Russians, students and programmers, and they would be offended at your assessment of the situation. The most telling part of my conversations with them was when I suggested that things are getting at least a little better. They were adamant that things were not getting better. Anyway they were glad to be in the states.

<comment><USER61> Immigrants have gone through incredible emotional struggle to adapt to a new culture. They are not a reliable source to assess how things are in their country of origin, especially not how things are currently. And to lump together Russia and Ukraine and say that things are not getting better, is gross oversimplification. Ukraine has had weak leaders and strong oligarchs since the fall of the Soviet Union. However Russia has had strong leaders (Yeltsin and then Putin) who have consistently pushed back on their oligarchs. In particular Putin has spent most of his leadership period fighting corruption, reigning in oligarchs, and undertaking the perestroika (redevelopment) that Gorbachev was never able to achieve. Things in Russia are getting better while things in Ukraine are getting worse. They are heading in opposite directions and many Ukrainians are aware of this which is why public dissent has been growing there.

Being offended at someone's assessment of a situation is a political statement. We should not be surprised to hear people making political statements about a political situation. None of this makes one person more right or another one more wrong.

Politics is very hard to figure out, and we should all be careful of making oversimplified statements. It's not as simple as Ukraine signs an agreement with the EU and then everything is rosy. Neither is it as simple Putin twisting Yanukovitch's arm. This is a bloody complex geopolitical problem and Ukraine is getting no support in solving it from anyone outside Ukraine. They have to work through it, accept the hard knocks, and ultimately reap whatever benefits that their decision brings. Cheerleaders on the sidelines have no skin in the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Here's what I don't understand: what is the ultimate goal of this newfound desire to police everything? The obvious answer is control over people en mass, but say that happens...then what?

Articles like this (which I'm glad are being written) point out the flaws and injustice in the system, but don't discuss the presumed results "those in control" are looking to achieve by manipulating it.

From what I understand, the desired result is to minimize the autonomy of the general public and funnel the bulk of money, control, and power into the hands of a national elite. What happens next (an honest question, as I have some semi-paranoid theories but am curious to hear from someone who is a bit more educated on the topic)?

<comment><USER64> We live in an era of delicate balance between global overpopulation and resource depletion. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, we are at peak supply rates for oil and other essential resources. We're rendering things less habitable and global climate change - coupled with water table depletion and topsoil burnout - threatens to crash food crops in some key regions.

It's not a conspiracy. People who know things - and when you have wealth you have the ability to know things - tend to see that we have a period of incredibly instability coming involving a lot of dying and misery. In such a situation having a tight control of the masses and a control of resources in the hands of a tiny elite benefits that elite in ways that times of abundance make seem unnecessary.

<comment><USER63> Thanks for the response. Fairly inline with what I thought. Next question, how to prepare? Is it futile to make an effort to protect myself and those around me, or is such a thing feasible (I imagine this would require a huge edit to lifestyle)?

I don't want to be "that guy" but I also don't want to be caught in the headlights if shit hits the fan (which it seems is inevitable). Anything to study to guide my thinking without going full-on bomb shelter?

<comment><USER50> You may plan your life to get a minimal exposure to future problematic development. Moving to a quiet place overseas might be a wise decision. This being noted though, you may also chose to gird up your belt, lift up your boots, and stay put enjoying what's coming - it'll be a helluva show (definitely worth witnessing)!

<comment><USER64> I have two kids. One with special needs. I see no joy in a world of increasing instability, rising violence and significant economic shocks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> This is _AMAZING_! We're getting closer and closer to a cyberpunk society (unfortunately, authoritarianism is necessary, but not sufficient for this). Soon it'll be like _Escape From L.A._ or _Snow Crash_ or _Neuromancer_!

I can't wait to stroll down the streets of Chiba like Case.

I can't wait to hack around in the Metaverse like Hiro.

I can't wait to explore the underbelly of prison-islands like Snake.

We just need a bit more authoritarianism, some advanced cybernetic implants, and _just enough_ unrest for a _Modern Wild West_ to be born.

Does anyone else plan on coming along for the ride?

 _HACK THE GIBSON! HACK THE PLANET!_

<comment><USER66> LOL. I like Gibson, technology, and stuff too, but that's not a reason to be stoked about authoritarianism.

Anyway you are probably kidding.

<comment><USER65> > Anyway you are probably kidding.

Yep! Well, mostly. I'd say 95%.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I generally agree with the article, but I object to this section:

 _" And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead of pushing a debate about how to restructure our predatory financial system, liberals in their focus on individual prosecution are aping the punitive zeal of the authoritarians. A few high-profile prosecutions for insider trading (which had nothing to do with the last crash) have, of course, not changed Wall Street one bit."_

I think that the self-serving, damaging actions of those with a lot of power that affected the entire world's economy is worth looking into at least some prosecution, it's hardly in the same league as what happened to three innocent teenagers waiting for a bus. And if insider trading isn't related to the last crash, then of course prosecuting it isn't going to change anything.

<comment><USER67> The idea that there is a small cabal of powerful people who brought the economy to its knees while enriching themselves through their knowing and active malfeasance is a fairy tale.

To ethically prosecute people you have to competently and in good faith believe they have broken specific laws. And you need to know the actions, and how specifically they violated the law. An unfortunate outcome is not sufficient.

<comment><USER41> I made no claim that there is a small cabal of powerful people controlling everything brought down the system.

There are, however, Goldman Sachs people that lied to their own customers in order to make money, for example. That is the kind of behaviour that can be persecuted, mostly along the conflict of interest or fraud lines. Those are specific laws.

Oh, by the way, heard of the Libor scandal? Not specifically related to the crash, but interesting reading:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal)

<comment><USER67> Fair enough -- 'cabal' was my loaded word.

I have no problem with Fabulous Fab going to jail, although I don't thick it's quite as cut-and-dried as you imagine.

I'm familiar with the Libor scandal.

But in both those cases particular people did specific things which were actionable.

<comment><USER41> How many have gone to jail over these actionable items?

<comment><USER67> AFAIK Fab has yet to be sentenced, and note that as a foreign national, he's not eligible for the country club prisons.

At the same time, the you don't see prosecutors going after the hundreds of thousands who lied to obtain mortgages they would otherwise not have qualified for. That is the real irony of the comprehensive settlement of the investment banks -- the banks are paying billions in fines because of borrowers misrepresenting themselves.

<comment><USER41> One guy? Wow, justice at work. We are clearly over-targeting bankers.

Oh I see, you're of the "blame the borrowers" mentality. All those slick willies/poor bums scamming the naive banks out of money. Not at all the banks packaging bad debt with full knowledge of the bullshit they were participating in, due to perverse personal incentives on their own staff trading off huge institutional risk for guaranteed short term personal gain. Nor them taking side bets on the whole system crashing so seeing a win-win either way (those of the GS variety). Not to mention the banks are supposed to know what they're getting into, they are after all the experts.

Last I checked the ones suffering after the crash are most definitely not the banks, but rather the middle and lower class who have not seen effective wage increases in 30 years and now have even more trouble finding a job. Wow they really pulled a fast one on the banks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Please see historical and global context related to 'police-state' and despotism in order to understand the significance of these issues. You will need to set aside your American exceptionalism.

I do have an issue with the article though. My middle school did have quite a few young criminals in it, and a zero-tolerance policy would have been beneficial for everyone. Instead, quite a lot of physical violence and theft was dismissed as 'bullying' which resulted in escalation. I know for a fact that many of the students who misbehaved in less extreme criminal ways (and were allowed to get away with it) did enter into a life of crime before they were halfway through high school.

So there is a difference between militarization and despotic control and disciplining students enough to prevent them from becoming criminals.

I think that rather than worrying about harsh penalties for vandalism etc., take issue with the propaganda being fed to students and the lack of focus on problem solving outside of narrow domains.

</comment><comment><USER68> The largest problem that I see with the militarization of the local police is that they will increasingly start to view themselves as soldiers. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment))

</comment><comment><USER69> At least the 113th congress didn't create many new laws. No SOPA, PIPA, or COICA yet either.

<comment><USER70> one of the few beauties of our government is that it is near impossible to pass laws with a divided congress. I'm a pretty passionate libertarian/conservative but having the dems control one house of congress isn't all that bad of a thing (from my viewpoint)

<comment><USER71> Seconded. It's very popular these days to bash congress for not getting anything done, but it has its upsides. I'm pretty far left, and I wish the far-right wasn't quite so powerful, but I am glad the republican party is there, still powerful, waiting to pounce on any and every mistake made on the left. It helps keep us honest (c.f. obamacare - which I like, but the rollout, eh...). And when the roles are switched, say, 50 years, we'll do you the same "favor" :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> The post-911 federal gov has been directing resources towards building a domestic counter-insurgency apparatus and promoting a culture in law enforcement conducive to their inclusion in it. You don't spend over a decade building something without a reason. So what's the reason? Needless to say, if the founding fathers were around today they'd be pondering a strategy to resist it.

</comment><comment><USER73> The usual internet twaddle. How many commenters on this thread have bothered to look up incidents of this nature in their districts, neighbourhoods or whatever, and called their councilman or congressman?

I guarantee none. Spend less time online and more complaining to your representatives. You will achieve a lot more in turning things around, ie if you really want to, cowards.

</comment><comment> Digit-Al To me, as an English person looking at America through the prism of the news, and articles such as this, it looks more and more like the American state is a rogue element beset by paranoia, increasingly lacking trust not only in the world at large, but also in its own citizens.

Do any of you American citizens out there have the same opinion of your government?

</comment><comment><USER74> We are living in an extreme, high tech, highly theatrical version of The Wire; one in which you can't trust your government, the law, the police and you can guarantee they are watching you.

Turns out that any laws that have loop holes will be abused and everyone is guilty. This is the definition of tyranny.

</comment><comment><USER75> I would say this is a symptom that could be explained by Turchin's structural- demographic theory -- that is, increasing competition for resources (including political power) produces measures that even in earlier, more violent periods might have been considered too drastic.

</comment><comment><USER76> I'd love to study how long it takes the tanks to fall into disuse, to the point of being inoperable, simply because police departments will lose interest in them, neglect maintenance, forget where all of the pieces are, fail to find suppliers for spares, etc.

</comment><comment><USER77> My small town is gearing up as well ...

[http://waterford.patch.com/groups/police-and- fire/p/waterfor...](http://waterford.patch.com/groups/police-and- fire/p/waterford-police-department-humveeing-along)

<comment><USER78> My town of 2,000+ people now has a humvee... for a police department that has 3 officers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> My family came on boat number 2 after the Mayflower. For the first time in my life, it may be time to checkout of the USA for awhile. Maybe it is time? Can always visit, but maybe this is it. This is just insane at this point.

</comment><comment><USER80> This can only stop when the epithet "Weak on Crime" no longer has power in politics.

</comment><comment><USER81> The _re-criminalization_ of everyday life—"privacy may be an anomaly".

</comment><comment><USER82> l9.

</comment><comment><USER83> > Sheriff Bud York suggested, according to the Post-Star, the local newspaper, > that "in an era of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and mass killings in > schools, police agencies need to be ready for whatever comes their way...

And in reality, they're just preparing for social unrest that seem more likely by the day.

<comment><USER84> In reality the sheriff saw an opportunity for positive press and went for it. You don't turn down free PR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> This story reminded me of the Boston bombing and it's "lockdown" (read martial law). Didn't Boston have one of these APCs roaming the streets during its martial law. In that case it's really a show of force against the "civilian" population than to catch terrorists.

Why the hell does Ohio State need an MRAP. Are they going to actually tell us that the terrorists might roll in with tanks or APCs. Or maybe the terrorists will be running around with APCs in full combat? No.

Geez, is anybody even questioning these clowns about these acquisitions.

</comment><comment><USER85> This is probably more of "If we scare people by throwing around the terrorist word then we get to spend money, have cool new toys, and look badass".

It's pathetic, but it seems to work.

<comment><USER44> Pathetic & self serving. There would be a cessation of federal/State/Muni funds if any agency's focal issue(s) were eradicated, hence the popularity of "War On..." ideologies with unattainable objectives. What starts as a legitimate(sic) cause all too often morphs into a personal job security issue. Imagine all the ICE, DHS, NSA, FBI, CIA, state, county and local LEOs that would have to look elsewhere for jobs if the "War on..."s didn't raise their budgets every fiscal quarter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> The 'good old days' had drug dealers and violence, don't kid yourself. It got covered up and ignored.

What is a police dept to do, when the crimes are escalating? Its simple to chide Warren County (or whoever); but who are you to say the next bombing or public rage will not occur there? The others were in similar places; no place is safe.

<comment><USER28> They are not. See stats.

<comment><USER86> Didn't see stats in the article; just lots of strawmen and irresponsible summaries of crimes.

<comment><USER11> Crime, especially violent crime, is dropping in most of US.

<comment><USER87> This generalization gets bandied about too much. Crime trends and patterns are highly local. I'm sure violent crime is dropping in many places, but in other places it's spiraling out of control, for example, South Chicago, East Oakland, Detroit. I think it's a mistake to throw those places in the same basket as a small city in Ohio (unless it really has similar crime stats).

<comment><USER11> Do you have crime stats for those areas please?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Those Who Care Not For Trees - <AUTHOR> http://blog.statwing.com/those-who-care-not-for-trees/

<comment><USER2> I realize this is post is intended as a light-hearted sales pitch rather than a deep analysis, but I think the conclusions are misguided.

The overriding problem is that you are trying to presenting conclusions based on 300 responses out of 10,000 people surveyed, but never mention the possibility of measurement error. Even ignoring intentionally incorrect responses, considering that these respondents appear "cranky", how many might inverted the 1 to 4 scale? How many might have been one row off?

To go further and break down this 3% of respondents into age, region, and income is very prone to overfitting. Are these conclusions consistent across the multiple years of the survey? How many "over 74" tree-haters were there each year? Are they more or less likely to miskey an answer?

 _How do you feel about the current number of trees in your city? Too many? About right? Not enough? You probably didn't answer "Too many."_

Why presume that everyone wants more trees? Is it hard to believe that there might be a point where a neighborhood could have too many, and that different people might have different thresholds for this? Your rhetorical question presumes a strange form of cultural diversity bounded by moral certitude.

I've met many Americans raised in the rural West who feel hemmed in by trees. I've met Australian ranchers who consider them to be weeds that steal ground water that could otherwise grow grass. There are numerous accidents caused by obscured street signs, and cities remove trees all the time. I know allergy sufferers everywhere who have very strong opinions on which trees they like and which they despise. And while I love fruit trees, many see them mostly as food for rats.

Going one step further, even if you think the study is completely accurate, and the demographic numbers large enough to be significant, the post misses what to me seems like the obvious question: do the responses correlate to the number of trees in each area? Do the areas with fewer trees have more people who want more? Do the areas with the most have the most who are satisfied? If not, why not?

Sorry for the vehemence. I'm reading lots of articles lately that misuse statistics, and I don't think this post puts your company in a good light.

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Thanks for the comments.

For readability's sake we did not present the statistical side of the results, but they were unambiguous for everything we mentioned in the post. Perhaps in the future we should present those results in footnotes to assure inquiring minds that we addressed valid concerns like yours (e.g., overfitting).

Love the examples of valid reasons folks don't like trees. Almost any of them seem like viable hypotheses to explore for why folks fall in the 3% (though obviously we'd need very different data from that which we have handy).

To address the specific comment about trees per neighborhood: unfortunately we didn't have granular enough data about the locations of respondents to analyze that; agreed that there's likely something there.

Thanks again for the comments.

Late followup edit: Thanks to your suggestions, we added some clarifying footnotes to the post.

. Phone survey results were same as written survey results, so the issue isn't measurement error.

. All findings were backed by statistical testing, the p-values for which were almost always below 0.0001.

. Tests were replicated year over year; didn't add an additional note about overfitting but doesn't seem like a big concern with 300 datapoints and just a few variables of particular interest.

It wasn't that hard to stick this into the post as footnotes; in the future we'll do better with that. Thanks for the help.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, I appreciate the updates and thoughts. I did dive a little into the data, and yes, there does seem to be something real going on. Interestingly, there are quite a few people who answered that their neighborhood had too many trees, but the city as a whole had about the right number. Makes me wonder if this is speaking about "fairness" rather than actual tree preferences.

The statistical testing is tricky, though. Did you go in with the thesis that there might be a correlation between age and ideal number of trees, or did you first pin down "too many trees" and then search the data for correlation? Or even more problematically, did you search for cross-correlations on all columns and then discover the age-tree link? If either of the second, your definition of "significance" needs to be custom.

<comment><AUTHOR> Went in there with the aim of exploring the trees question, and hypothesized there might be relationships between that and obvious demographic questions. The "crankiness" bit was much more driven by exploratory analysis.

We take a fairly pragmatic approach to the multiple comparisons problem you're highlighting. If p-values are < 0.00001 we don't really worry unless we're doing a crazy amount of analyses. And when we do get p-values that are borderline (like .01) and we're doing multiple comparisons we'll mention that there may or may not be something actually happening there (as we did in our post about Baltimore parking tickets: [http://blog.statwing.com/baltimore- parking-tickets-revisited...](http://blog.statwing.com/baltimore-parking- tickets-revisited/)).

For what it's worth, I think ceph_'s comment and link below (<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116165781554501615.html>) about the relationship between trees and gentrification is the best available guess as to what's ultimately driving these attitudes. But yeah, it's probably a combination of a lot of things, many of which aren't actually about trees per se.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Interesting enough. Perhaps 3.9% of the respondents didn't like having their time wasted with a survey, so decided to be deliberately awkward in every response they made. This would seem to fit in with the 'lumberjacks' being older and having a lower income than other respondents: both characteristics can be associated with a kind of hard-nosed practicality and a disdain for treehuggers and silly surveys.

I'm sure there's a law somewhere that says that no matter how completely indefensible a position, there is some contrary-minded group who will loudly proclaim allegiance to it. And if there isn't, there is now.

(Edit: OP, not suggesting your survey was silly, just that the 3.9% might have thought so.)

<comment><USER4> The respondents in general came from one geographical part of the city and also grade the quality of service of the city more harshly than others.

I interpret this that the parks department might be doing a really bad job in certain parts of the city. The trees are not kept well and trimmed, obstructing views and making driving unsafe, branches in the street after heavy winds, something like that. Now if I already think the city is doing a piss poor job, I'm sure not going to give them the justification they need to raise my taxes just so they can plant more trees (when they can't be trusted to take care of the ones that already exist).

In other words, the respondent's answer depends on the who they think is asking the question and how they think their answer might be used.

<comment><USER3> Very good point about this specifically. They live in a poorer part of the city. It shouldn't be that way, but it may well be that their neighbourhoods aren't as well tended as some of the richer parts of San Francisco.

> In other words, the respondent's answer depends on the who they think is > asking the question and how they think their answer might be used.

Also, a good point about surveys in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'd expect that many of the responses from people who would prefer less trees are from people who have specific trees that they are annoyed with. For instance, if there are some city-owned trees that make it so you have to clean your gutters often, or that are blocking what would otherwise be a spectacular (and property value boosting) view, I can see thinking that your city has too many trees.

<comment><USER6> View-blocking is a major problem in a beautiful city with lots of trees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think calling these people lumberjacks is a bit off, since lumberjacks actually love trees and want to see more of them as well.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair point. Any suggestions for a sorta silly label for a group that genuinely doesn't like trees? Went with lumberjacks to avoid saying anything overly disparaging, but it's not great.

<comment><USER8> Treeshruggers

<comment><USER9> This is the one

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. Sorry we didn't act on this sooner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Trees are seen as a step towards gentrification to some. Efforts to plant more trees in the tenderloin have been actively rallied against.[1] As they believed the increase in property values they would no longer be able to live there.

[1] <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116165781554501615.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> Good find. That makes a lot of sense. Added a note about this at the bottom of the blog post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Small percentages like these aren't necessarily worth reading much into, and they don't necessarily have anything to do with the question being asked.

It could very well be that lower-income, older people (who _would_ disproportionately live in the southwest) are disproportionately likely to make mistakes when filling out surveys.

Use of a letter-grade system also introduces error, since the value of a particular letter grade is subjective and has varied over time. It could very well be that older people, who received their own grades before the grade inflation of the last generation, have stricter standards when it comes to assigning letter grades to things.

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't dive into it in the post, but we settled the survey-entry-mistake hypothesis to our satisfaction by looking only at the responses that were gathered via phone (about 1/4 of the dataset) and finding that the same trends still held true.

Also, I really wanted the grade inflation hypothesis to be true, but I just took another look at the data and age turns out not to be consistently indicative of lower or higher grades for city services.

Thanks for the comment. Both really valid questions/comments.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> off-topic: if you link to footnotes, provide a link back to the place I was reading.

<comment><USER13> Does any website do that? Does the back button not work well enough?

<comment><USER14> Wikipedia does. Unfortunately pg's essays don't, which is a shame, because it would help the reading experience much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Aside from the fact that this survey is worthless because of a gross lack of data - 3% of people surveyed probably don't travel into the city much and live in areas with dense tre growth. If you lived their life you would probably agree with them, instead you question if they are just grumpy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Are these the same people who litter, or would walk past litter even if it was right in front of them?</comment>


Ask HN: How common is it to plug full time gaps with contractors? - <AUTHOR>

How common is it to plug the gap using a contractor for full time positions because you couldn't find any good candidates or you don't have enough time to wait? <comment><USER2> I've seen it happen a few times a year with my clients in London. Occasionally the contractors become part of the furniture though as good candidates that are available at the right price are not always easy to come across.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's common in London in areas which have a shortage of good candidates.

</comment><comment><USER4> It is generally not a good plan to fill gaps via contractors because you "couldn't find any good candidates". The process of finding contractors is largely the same as finding FTE and they have some added overhead/moral hazards.

You can use contractors if you have timelines that require bringing them on fast, or limited scope work. Any situation that requires the long term use of contractors is suspicious (and potentially problematic from a legal/tax consequence).

<comment><USER3> I think the logic behind hiring contractors is that he's available to start working immediately and, in the meantime, a company can look for a good permanent employee (which is usually much cheaper as well, at least in London) to replace him.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Visiting SF for the first time: Where to stay? What to do? Who to see? - <AUTHOR>

Looking for advice on getting the most out of the city from a startup perspective.
My co-founder and I are coming from London as part of http://www.ldn2sfo.com/ . That aims to give us a whirlwind lowdown on how SV and SF operate, and a very high-level view of where a few startups and VCs are located.
We'd love to get a somewhat deeper view and with a view to working our  backsides off and growing our bootstrapped company into one that requires a US entity within a year, we want to get a good sense of how SF can be done bootstrapped or at least affordably (even from a London perspective the salaries, rent, etc look crazy high from here).
At the very basic end there are just trip logistics: Recommend an AirBNB to use as a base, or a garage to sleep in, ideally owned by someone on HN and with a good internet connection (we work when we have moments spare).
At the other end there's a more general: If you were coming to San Francisco and Silicon Valley for the first time and for a week or so and wanted to get the most out of it, what do you wish someone had told you?
Basic goal: Figure out how SF/SV works from a startup perspective, build a network of contacts that might grow into friendships that could offer support in the future, and on the dream list would be to also build a few connects with VCs who might later become investors.
So in the most vague Ask HN ever, what would you share with a UK startup coming to San Francisco? <comment><USER2> I'm a Londoner. SF is a beautiful city and I want to go back very soon.

With that said I'm not sure what the purpose of this trip is (I did read your objectives). Some food for thought below.

> "A very high-level view of where a few startups and VCs are located."

You're based in London, which means you have access to some excellent global VC houses (Balderton, Index, Accel + others). There is a proliferation of small (<£500k) money in London which is also easy to tap into. There are plenty of outstanding startups who are based in London. What do you gain by going to SF that you couldn't get by setting up a few meetings in London?

> one that requires a US entity within a year, we want to get a good sense of > how SF can be done bootstrapped, or at least affordably

A lot can change in 12 months. It's hard to envisage a situation in which you're making a smart decision by expanding to the US within 12 months without either the capital to make it relatively pain-free, or the traction required to do Series A. It's also hard to think that groundwork you do now is going to be useful or inform that move in any way shape or form. If you're in a situation where you absolutely must be in the US within the next 12 months then maybe, but otherwise just cross that bridge when you come to it.

> Figure out how SF/SV works from a startup perspective […] build a few > connects with VCs who might later become investors

SF/SV works the same way as London, Berlin or Paris: you can get swept up in scenester nonsense or you can spend your time working on your product and focusing on steps 1-20, not on steps 2000-3000.

In six months time if you have a good product, excellent traction and some revenues (+ ideas about 10x growth) then you will find that investors and interesting people won't be a problem. A good intro goes a long way, but it doesn't matter that much. It's platitudinal now but still true.

Everything is dictated by the focus you apply over the next few months. If I were bootstrapping my company I would be focusing relentlessly on building and testing assumptions.

So my advice is to have a GREAT time, see as much of the city as you can and have zero expectations. If there are any startups in your space in SF, drop them a line and go say hello. Drink beer with the people who are on the trip with you. Bond with your cofounder. Then come back to London and work seriously on the thing which will determine 99.9999% of your success.

<comment><AUTHOR> We are in a strange place. We're very non-scene even in London. We've raised our seed (GBP 55k) entirely from our active users who were very enthusiastic about supporting us. We have a strong growth plan from the 2nd level network of those same users, people who are waiting to use our product and we can't grow fast enough.

All of this is non-scene, under the radar if you will.

It already feels like things are going faster than we'd like, a good problem, but we do know that we will need proper investment in the future and a US presence. We'll likely still be based in London, but we know that we'll need basic stuff in the USA too.

Hence, before those problems arrive the purpose of the trip is:

1) To build some VC contacts so that we can start plotting our growth chart in front of them and hopefully have them as investors when that time comes.

2) To make sense of how SF works with a view to understanding where to base and why, should we need to move on that sooner rather than later.

Not to say it _will_ be SF, it could be Chicago. But I know Chicago as a town already, and I know zip about San Francisco.

Being so non-scene I also don't have a network or address book in which I can call someone up and say, "Hey, throw some doors open, and help show me around, and which of these social things should I go to?". So we're coming in quite cold, which is why LDN2SFO appealed to us... but we've given ourselves an extra week to get a deeper understanding and perhaps build some relationships that could be mutually beneficial in the future.

In some respects the Berlin, London, Barcelona startup scenes have, by necessity, already documented this stuff quite well. But San Francisco seems so large and established that there's a lack of a curated "The SF startup scene guide". At least, I couldn't find one that seemed current.

And as my limited network is simply "I am a user on HN", and this is the best place to ask... I asked here.

<comment><USER2> Can you email me a few more details? I have someone in mind that you might like to speak to.

<comment><AUTHOR> Will do.

I'm literally just running out for a few hours, but on my return I'll drop you an email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm British and travelled from London to SF with my co-founder last year.

I'd recommend to not try too hard and just to enjoy being out there. You've only got a week or so and it'll go quickly. I would forget all about VCs, they will sort themselves of their own accord if/when the time is right. Seeing and getting a feel for the city and the surrounding area is far more important in my opinion.

Hire a car. I was a little hesitant about driving in America at first, but it's actually very easy compared to driving in the UK (and trivial compared to London). Remember you can usually go through a red light if you're turning right! Driving will save you a lot of time and effort as public transport around SF is very limited (again compared to London) and it's quite a big city to walk around. Hiring a car is easy to do, we just walked into one of the many hire car depots on Mission and signed up on the spot.

If it's a sunny day then take a couple of hours to drive south down the 1 highway (the Pacific coast highway). Wow.

Knowing where all the startups are located is a bit overrated, I wouldn't bother visiting startup offices/buildings on spec, we drove down to Cupertino to see Apple's HQ which in hindsight was an adventure better suited to an even bigger Apple fan than I :)

Go to all the startup meetups you can, then go to the after drinks, stay til the end and chat to random people. We didn't actually get chance to do enough of this and I do regret that a bit. But I wouldn't worry too much if you don't make amazing contacts or friends in a few days there, these things usually take time.

Americans are very hospitable! We were treated like old family by the staff at a fantastic diner near where we were staying.

Hope that helps!

</comment><comment><USER4> \- If you go out for coffee, you can't beat Blue Bottle IMHO.

\- Do a lot of walking (within reason - it's not as big as London but things are more spaced apart!). You're there for a very short period this time around - if you have any thoughts about living there longer term (right now, before you have even been there) then forget about hacking code and concentrate more on getting a feel for the city. You can hack in London just as easily as you can in SF.

\- Drive down the 101 to Palo Alto and roll along University Ave.

I really like SF. I'm sure the first thing you'll notice is how much more positive the vibe is compared to London (I have been living in London for 6 years, have been to SF at least once a year for the past 3).

And good luck.

EDIT: Realised they are only there for a very short time.

<comment><USER5> Oh, no! not the 101! Take the 280. Often quicker and far, far prettier.

<comment><USER4> Actually good point - last time I was there I took one down and the other back. The 280 definitely has a bonus in that you don't go anywhere near the Oracle campus :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> brownies in #startups on freenode provided this link:

[https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=2...](https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=215628409610962086871.00048b3c0d910bf1a232a&ll=37.789438,-122.3592&spn=0.109205,0.194836&t=h&z=13&iwloc=00048b3c3afae10f91f4c)

It's a Google map showing the areas, descriptions of price/affordability for locating a business and who else is in those spaces. Which, from a birds eye view is a great start.

<comment><USER6> This is a great resource right here. I'm from Alabama and have no idea what SF is all about, but would love to be out in California one day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm from London and I got back from SF in November after doing a month long trip there with my co-founder. We went because we fell that London just doesn't have the same vibe and opportunity so we set off to meet like-minded people, investors and to work on our product.

One thing I highly recommend is entering hackdays, we ended up winning one and not only came away with a small cash prize (some have huge prizes) but also agreed investment in the idea (which is completely unreleased to our product. This opened up opportunities like you wouldn't believe. It was a nice break from building our thing too.

In one month we made inroads to investors and were very close on meeting some great ones but our time ran out, if we had another month im sure we would have got some face time with one or two guys but they are extremely busy. We used meetup.com and eventbrite to find out about events such as a talk by the Yammer founder on starting up and getting acquired. I also noticed that some fanastic talks happen that aren't on those sites, like ones at AirBNB and Asana. I saw a amazing talk by a guy who helped set up the tech behind Reddit, even as a designer I thought it was fascinating how they scaled.

Sign up to the Startup digest which collects all the events in SF each week and emails them to you, really great <http://startupdigest.com/>

I'm sure you know this already but it's all about making connections to people and getting recommended. If you are passionate about what you do and show that through your work and conversations then its easy to get endorsed by people. I found that the process is gradual, you meet someone who knows someone who knows someone, getting time for a coffee with people may take a hour or 2 weeks.

Beware of time wasters. It's easy to find yourself at events and in meetings that have no benefit to you. I went to a lot of things expecting knowledge sharing only to find that I was trying to be pitched to or hired. There's a lot of people in SF on the startup wagon looking for designers and developers to work on their idea with nothing more to offer than equity. Pick and choose events wisely.

We stayed on Fell Street, near Alamo park in a apartment found on Airbnb. It was a nice and safe area, the accommodation was pricey, roughly £2300 for a simple, smallish 1 bedroom apartment (we took turns on the sofabed futon thing).

Mexican food is everywhere and it's amazing. In the same way London has kebab shops, SF has Taquerias and they are super cheap $6-9 for a burrito stuffed with meat. I don't recall having one bad meal in SF.

I you could learn more in SF in 6 months than you could in London in 2 years. The place is buzzing with activity, there's literally something brilliant going on each day, whether it's a hackday, founder talk or meetup. Add that to all the non-startup stuff going on like food festivals, street markets, Alcatraz and its great.

</comment><comment><USER8> From a one-time tourist to SF (I can't help you with the SV / job stuff, sorry) : \- Don't shop/eat out anywhere close to the cable car lines. The prices are just through the roof

\- use Yelp.com to find good/affordable places to eat. Do your baseline shopping at Walmart.

\- We didn't need a rental car for sightseeing. IMHO most of the attractions in SF are within walking distance. This probably won't apply to your situation.

</comment><comment><USER9> PG's post on where to see Silicon Valley from 2010: <http://www.paulgraham.com/seesv.html>

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a Steve Blank article that covers some of this: <http://steveblank.com/visitors-guide/> Good start is also to use plancast, meetup, etc to see what's going on. Can highly recommend using AirBnB to find a host who is also into the tech-scene (read descriptions, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER11> hey David,

I used to live in Brighton and moved to SF last June. I tried to bootstrap in the UK for about 2 yrs and then came out here to see if I could speed the process up. Unfortunately I got swallowed by my day job and that hasn't moved as fast as I hoped to, but that's a different story.

Preferring the bootstrapper way I haven't looked at all in VCs and the like, but I've looked extensively into SF and I'm involved with the local LSC group.

I'd be happy to share what I know and show you around SF if you'd like to - any way I can help I'm happy to - I wished someone had done something like that for me when I first moved here so this is a good chance for me to do that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, would love to... just drop me an email at email@example.com or put an email into your profile so that I can contact you.

The emails aren't visible in the HN profile, so you have to put it in the info area.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've asked something similar last year here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2188928>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, much appreciated and some great info

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've asked a similar question a year ago: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3308036>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> BTW, this might be a great example of posting something at the wrong time. I posted it when I woke up as it was on my mind, but doh... it was also 2am SF time and dropped off the front page by 7am SF time.

Really should have considered who I'm targetting and posted it later.

</comment><comment><USER14> i think the neighborhood guide airbnb did about san francisco is really well done. might be helpful: <https://www.airbnb.com/locations/san-francisco>

</comment><comment><USER15> Alright. Least vague response ever.

<http://marlowesf.com/> <\- EAT THERE</comment>


TikTok and WeChat: US to ban app downloads in 48 hours - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54205231 <comment><USER2> That will drive the VPN business, some cheaper/free VPNs may buckle under the load.</comment>


Ask HN: Am I the only one feeling stupid when looking at interview questions? - <AUTHOR> I got about 8 years of professional experience in building web pages and mobile apps. I am also comfortable with databases, servers apis etc.
I wouldn't say I am a very good developer, maybe not even good. When it comes to the job though I have successfully managed to complete various tasks and e.g fix very difficult bugs.
I started looking for a job due to covid19 and my company deciding to go very lean through this stage.
I joined some sites like codewars and have been looking some interviews from interviewing.io which was posted yesterday.
After looking at most of the problems I feel like a simpleton. I feel like there is no way I can compete with other developers out there. My CS background is not that strong currently, but well my question is, does anyone else feel like that when looking at those questions or am I alone?
Also is there a site, guide or anything else that would help me to improve?
I'd say my issue comes mostly by searching a solution to a problem on the internet and then finding something that most of the times I'll change to fit my needs. I lack the power to write solutions from scratch. <comment><USER2> I am working as an architect with about 17+ years of experience and i feel the same. However it would still be prudent to practice as mentioned in one of the comments. Things seem easier if tackled before. Your task should be to create the time and the motivation for regular practice.

</comment><comment><USER3> If it makes you feel better, you can learn to solve many of these coding challenges by practicing them. Taking IQ tests repeatedly leads to getting a better score, not because you are 'smarter', you are just more in practice with the quiz material and the style of questions.

</comment><comment><USER4> You're not alone, I've been coding professionally for 12 years and I feel the same.</comment>


Apple Pro Display XDR Review - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/apple-pro-display-xdr <comment><USER2> I'm impressed by the color gamut coverage of the XDR.

However:

> The entire monitor is controlled via macOS, which means that even if you > wanted to hook up a non-Apple laptop or desktop capable of outputting video > through USB Type-C, you couldn't. It won't turn on in the first place. > (Trust us: We tried.) You can achieve full functionality with Windows, but > you'll have to be running it on a Mac in Boot Camp.

 _This_ seems unacceptable. Instead of not running at the full 6k resolution (like the 5k one does because DP, at the time, only supported 4k over one cable), they just won't let it work? There has to be some technical reason besides malice.

<comment><USER3> The fact that Apple went to the trouble to develop a Windows driver for the Pro Display XDR but lock it down so it only works on Macs running Boot Camp - there is no justification for that other than malice.

<comment><USER2> _Did they_ write a driver for Windows? The review wasn't clear. They just said it only worked on Windows if you're running Bootcamp. That could easily mean the Mac (computer) does all the "driver" work, not necessarily macOS (the OS). In which case, that would explain why it doesn't work on any computer other than a Mac.

<comment><USER4> I will admit that I know very little about monitors or their drivers but it wouldn't surprise me that such a sophisticated piece of hardware requires a driver.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > But outside of those complaints, the Pro Display XDR stuns in every other > metric it competes in, earning our Editors' Choice.

</comment><comment><USER6> They amend it and hence the click bait title might be too click bait

" [Editors' Note: We tweaked this review on Feb. 4, 2020, to clarify compatibility details around the Pro Display XDR with Windows, Blackmagic hardware, and Linux, as well as regarding details on the LED lighting technology used.]"

Or a bit more detail in the article

" It bears mentioning that because the XDR works only with Apple devices except in some limited scenarios (according to Apple, you can work with the XDR outside macOS in an SDI workflow via the Blackmagic SDI to DP Teranex box, as well as in some Linux scenarios), we had to run a workaround to get CalMAN working correctly,"

</comment><comment><USER7> Title should be updated:

> Apple Pro Display XDR Review

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't > editorialize.

<comment><AUTHOR> But that is precisely the interesting point from the review!

<comment><USER8> If you want to say what you think is important about a story, please do so via a comment in the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with others'. Don't use the title field to do it; that's editorializing, and breaks the site guidelines, as AdamJacobMuller pointed out.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%22level%20playing%20field%22&sort=byDate&type=comment)

(Submitted title was "Apple Pro Display XDR does not support non-mac computers".)

<comment><USER7> Thank you.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is the save icon still represented by a floppy disk? - <AUTHOR>

I was teaching my daughter how to save her work, when I realized that she wouldn't know what a floppy disk is.<p>What'd be a better representation of a save operation? <comment><USER2> _What'd be a better representation of a save operation?_

Since explicitly saving a document very rarely creates value for users and introduces several ways for them to fail with their tasks ("What is this file system metaphor of which you speak?", "I forgot to save this and then closed my browser. Is that bad?", "I just clobbered the old file I was working with. Is that bad?"), I'm a fan of just doing away with it entirely.

I have occasionally gotten emails from people asking where the Save button is in my web applications. Many of my users seem to expect things to work like Gmail/Facebook though: you do your thing, and then your thing stays done, even without having to call your nephew who is good with computers to make sure the thing on the disk does not get eaten by a virus on your Googles.

<comment><USER3> Do you warn your users that their work is saved?

Maybe that lack of information in the interface is what is making them email you about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmmm. Saving a document is just making a record of the changes. With that in mind, some ideas:

       -record/disc (as the round image is generally universal, even inside floppies)
       -page (as in a document, as in to record something)
       -a red circle (talk about universal, just grey it out when no changes are detected)

Or create a new symbol, say, two arrows overlapping, one pointing down, the other right. (Here and forward. And yes, I know not everyone uses those directions to mean those things, but I like the red circle more anyway.)

</comment><comment><USER5> I don't know of anything better that I can think of. I also don't necessarily think a replacement is needed. Long after floppies are consigned to myth & legend, the icon can live on. I see road signs featuring steam trains but I've never seen a steam train, I see rotary phone images and I have only hazy memories of using one in the 80's. The purpose becomes its meaning and its origins are pretty irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like it because it's an iconic icon (tautology intended). It embeds a little bit of computing history right there in a 16x16 image.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think the save operation is going obsolete anyways.</comment>


What ordinary people think a "blockchain" is; the term "Blockchain Technology" - <AUTHOR> https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2019/04/29/what-ordinary-people-think-a-blockchain-is-and-the-weasel-term-blockchain-technology/ <comment><USER2> The author seems to know as little about blockchains as the people he makes fun of.</comment>


Is Perpetual Motion in a Vacuum Possible? - <AUTHOR>

I'm no scientist.  But I have an amateurish interest in reading about perpetual motion machines.
Here is a thought I had.  I am sure it won't work.  But can you tell me why?
1. In a vacuum - if you push something, it'll keep on moving because of lack of friction / law of inertia - correct?
2. So can you push a rotor in a vacuum so that it always keeps on moving on its hinges and keeps on generating electrical power - which can be stored in batteries? <comment><USER2> The problem is not actually the motion but the generation of energy. I.e. you need to create more than you consume. And you can't create unless you consume.

So even if you could make it go around perpetually you wouldn't generate energy just from that.

It's kind of like lighting a match.

You can sway it around in the air, but it is not until you actually put it down on the match box that you start creating energy.

Now the trick is to create energy to both keep dragging your match along the box and at the same time generation som energy surplus.

</comment><comment><USER3> Entropy will always get you baby...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment.

Pardon my ignorance.

I read about entropy on wikipedia. But didn't get a clear picture about it.

Does it mean that because of entropy - the rotor in a vacuum will stop movement?

(What I'm curious about is: "A thing in motion keeps on moving at the same speed in a vacuum" - is that an incorrect statement?)

<comment><USER3> A thing in motion will continue at the same speed and in the same direction until another force acts upon it.

OK - you have spotted that drag from air can quickly slow down an object here on earth and that thus an object in a vacuum will spin (or whatever) for a lot longer without air slowing it down.

But drag from air is not the only force likely to affect the motion of your theoretical object.

<comment><USER4> The problem as I understand it is this. Let's imagine that the rotor spins forever. At some stage that rotor has to be attached to something else to actually harness the energy and here some friction will occur.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The End of an Icon - <AUTHOR> http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/the_end_of_an_icon/

<comment><USER2> As much as I hate to disagree with Aza Raskin, this is possibly the worst example of icons becoming obscure. The floppy disk icon is hardly going anywhere; it's pretty much ubiquitous and universally recognised, despite having lost the original meaning behind it.

If anything, it's similar to how road signs describing trains still have a silhouette of an old-fashioned steam locomotive, even though these days they're hardly anywhere to be seen.</comment>


The Help You Help Me Dinner - <AUTHOR> http://www.helpmehelpyoudinner.org/

<comment><USER2> We do a dinner like this but everyone pays their own tab. We self-curate a small group of founders and everyone goes around sharing an issue they are working on. Incredibly useful for getting outside views on stuff.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Specify a time and date, rather than trying to sort out other people's > schedules. Usually Tuesdays or Wednesdays around 8pm work best.

Everybody knows Tuesday nights work best, so everything gets scheduled on Tuesday nights :)

</comment><comment><USER4> If I got an invitation like that, I'd throw it in the trash. It sounds too much like a sales letter, especially when it explicitly denies being one.

Not to mention, I'm suspicious when strangers offer to buy me dinner. Even if it's a "friend of a friend."

Last critique--Networking is great, but it's easy to confuse BSing over pizza with building your network.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish I could afford to treat 12 people to dinner. #highschoolteacherproblems

<comment><USER6> 12 people feels quite a crowd. From my experience talks in crowds of that size stay typically very shallow. Any ideas on how to keep that more focused?

<comment><AUTHOR> well, 12 is the absolute maximum, i personally prefer a number close to 10. something which has worked quite well so far is a short introduction of yourself and the idea behind the dinner when everybody has arrived. then hand out some notes with the three rules on it. lead by example ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why is the domain name HelpMeHelpYou... but the site is headed Help You Help Me?

<comment><AUTHOR> oops! just fixed it, thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It seems to me that there's a bit of historical precedent for 'Help You Help Me', namely Benjamin Franklin's Junto [1].

Two questions, from a much larger universe, put for discussion at the Junto's weekly meetings:

In what manner can the Junto, or any of them, assist you in any of your honourable designs?

Have you any weighty affair in hand, in which you think the advice of the Junto may be of service?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_(club)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto_\(club\))

</comment><comment><USER9> Great Idea!</comment>


A morphing metal for soft robots and other machines - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/a-morphing-metal-for-soft-robots-and-other-machines <comment><USER2> That's semi-interesting, because the materials + equipment needed to make this are very commonly available. Not every household will have a vacuum chamber, but many people interested in the Maker scene will from resin/silicon casting, vacuum forming, etc.</comment>


Ask HN: Any good Node.js books? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> Here is one: <http://ofps.oreilly.com/titles/9781449398583/> and this is how the book will look like once it's out: <http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/03/nodejs-book.php> Since node.js is still under development, you'll find very few text on it. Still try to look for code/examples on official site and videos are available too if you do a google search.

</comment><comment><USER3> the node API is not yet stable so a node.js book would date to quickly. pure js books are a better bet. I love Javascript patterns by Stoyan Stefanov. There are two other good Javascript books.</comment>