Expand Your Programming Vocabulary (for Beginners) - <AUTHOR> http://www.programmingforbeginnersbook.com/blog/expand_your_programming_vocabulary/ <comment><USER2> I'm a bit puzzled about the exact level this is pitched at.

The intro seems to be aimed at someone who already knows enough to be building web apps (albeit with difficulty). "Here's a description of a bad experience trying to solve an Angular problem. Sound familiar?"

But then it switches gears and what follows seems more appropriate for a reader who is completely new to programming. "Let me define terms like 'bug', 'comment', 'function call' and 'loop' for you."

(Maybe the actual audience is people who have recently started trying to build web apps (or something of the kind) without learning the fundamentals, and have been barely surviving by copy-and-pasting things? It doesn't _look_ like it from the other articles on the blog.)

I'm also not sure what our hypothetical beginner is supposed to do with this little glossary. On its own, it seems to me it has the exact same problem the author described earlier in the context of Angular documentation: you don't know what X means, so you look it up, but it's defined in terms of Y and Z which you also don't know. So you look up Y and it's defined in terms of P, Q, and X. Etc.

I think this sort of little glossary of basic terms is potentially useful, but only in the context of something -- e.g., perhaps the author's book -- that introduces these terms gradually, in an order chosen for ease of learning, and in a context where most of what's going on is something other than "here are some definitions to learn".

<comment><USER3> Exactly. I read the intro and was confused by the sample SO answer, so I thought "why not put this dictionary idea to the test?". I tried to look up the words from the post that I didn't know: minifier, injector, controller... nope!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> FWIW, software engineering is _RAMPANT_ with people who are very very poor at teaching, mentoring, and even just explaining things.

I suspect this is because many practitioners had to learn through hard-knocks and entirely by themselves and as a result feel that everyone has to go through the same "rite of passage" of suffering as a clueless newb.

While it is fairly easy for new folks to find "getting started" materials or for pros to get advanced information, there's a huge valley where confusion is the norm and one is reduced to getting down-votes and withering commentary on stackoverflow for deigning to ask a basic question without already knowing the answer.

I think understanding terminology definitely helps but the problem is more deep-seated. One could remain completely baffled with the example Angular answer even knowing the technical meaning of all the terminology.

<comment><USER5> There are so many condescending programmers out there; it makes asking questions on SO painful.

<comment><USER6> I think part of it is someone sees a question and thinks "Well why didn't you just google xyz?" without realizing that the only way to know to google xyz is to already know the answer to the question posed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> OK, that Angular example triggered me. This is exactly why I couldn't make heads or tails of my Angular caching issue - because all answers on SO were like this.

<comment><USER8> Honestly, I find the official Angular documentation useless until I already know what I want from it and just refer to it as a refresher.

<comment><USER9> Google's documentation is pretty bad across the board I find, not just NG (I won't mention FB's).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a pretty cool idea.

One thing bothered me slightly - It describes bugs as "a mistake in the code" but I suspect a more accurate description would be an "unintended outcome of a piece of code" or something to that effect.

</comment><comment><USER11> I do think this would be helpful for people just learning to program. When my daughter was introduced to programming at school they used the term "procedure" to describe a function or method. I noticed that wasn't listed as a synonym, which would be helpful.

So, good for the general public and good for new programmers. When I get people in the lab that want to "learn programming" this is where I will send them first. It will make all of the other programming introductions much easier to follow for someone with no prior experience.

Edit: Glad to see that it is the start of an intro programming book. All intro programming books should start with an intro to terminology. One other thing missing besides "procedure" \-- coding. They use it at the end of the page, but it is nowhere else on the page.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yes, you need a vocabulary, so this is a great idea, but the the vocabulary here is not as generic as the author would like to think. For example: type, variable, value will trigger discussions when people have a different background.

(Also there are some mistakes/typos, fe parenthesis iso parentheses )

<comment><USER13> I agree. Clearly the author has a particular aim in mind, which seems to be teaching Ruby and/or Javascript; for a generic, introductory glossary I wouldn't include so much OO terminology; not only is OO quite tricky to grasp _, but in some places it artificially limits the definitions, e.g. "The programmer can define more complicated types using classes".

I think it's sensible to move definitions like "class", "instance", "instance variable", "method", "object", "member function", "member variable" and "instantiate" to a separate glossary, which can be a bit more in-depth. Other glossaries could then deal with other common-but-more-specialised sub-topics too, like logic (booleans, AND, NOT, short-circuiting, lookup/truth tables, predicates, branches/clauses, etc.), syntax/structure (blocks, tokens, keywords, scope, statements, expressions, modules, namespaces, etc.), and so on.

_ Anecdotally, my first programming language was Python, which I managed to teach myself procedurally. OO only "clicked" for me after a couple of years of undergraduate CS courses, in Java, Python and C.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Pretty cool, and I liked the introduction.

One idea would of course be to make the [references] into actual links to the target word, kind of ... odd not to do that in a document delivered as a web page.

</comment><comment><USER15> Let's hope the answer on Stackflow reads 'its in built services'. Precision in English is important too. 'It's in built services' is gibberish.

</comment><comment><USER16> Typo: "data structure" is not a verb.

Glossaries like this are always welcome :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Good start at a glossary. One correction: string is a noun not a verb.

</comment><comment><USER18> Damn. This would have been useful 5 to 10 years ago before i turned into a walking lexicon _!

I think ill have to bookmark this for my future children/trainee :-)

_not that i dont make stupid mistakes when excited haha.</comment>


Ask HN: Non-startup software solutions - <AUTHOR> I am thinking where everywhere could be implemented software as solution. For example agriculture, ecology, catering sport, etc.  I don't mind apps like ranking restaurants, sport events scheduling, etc. I am looking for areas and ideas where solution has added value for people from field.<p>Have you any experiences from projects where software has been solution for certain issues within "not-so-famous" area for (startup) software engineers? I don't need to build startup with VC. <comment><USER2> Local government. There's a world of opportunity that exists at the intersection of municipal politics and public outreach-even if it means using existing services and platforms to do things like publishing City Council Meetings to YouTube.

I'm watching my local town do this right now with the aid of a friend. I asked him "Why not just hire an intern or borrow a paralegal from the county solicitor's office?" and he schooled me on how he's delivering more than just a pair of hands to upload content but actually building a whole communications platform.

I was rather enthralled with the concept until he called himself a "social media mercenary", then I just rolled my eyes and had another beer :P

Joking aside, government in small towns I am noticing are slowly waking up to the need for tech-or can easily be convinced to bring in startup-type tools and procedures for public facing endeavors.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is quite interesting. Friend of my from other city is trying to do similar thing - build platform for recording, publishing (not on YouTube) and archiving city council meetings. He told me they use some proprietary and "prehistoric" solution (from 1990 - 1995) with insane maintenance costs so he want to migrate everything to cheaper or ideally some open-source solution.</comment></comment>


Stand-Up Desks Gaining Favor in the Workplace - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/business/stand-up-desks-gaining-favor-in-the-workplace.html?_r=0 <comment><AUTHOR> I've been using a standing disk for the last year and a half. All my back pain is gone and I generally feel better. I highly recommend others start using it. First week might be a bit hard but you'll get used to it pretty soon.</comment>


Spacewar on an emulated PDP-1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.masswerk.at/spacewar/

<comment><USER2> This is great! I love seeing in-depth digital preservation. While I'm way too young to remember the original Spacewar, the DOS decedent of the same name will forever be a fond childhood memory.

On a completely unrelated note, somewhere I have some amazing 5'x8' (yes feet) ASCII-art mosaics or the Mona Lisa and the moon on green-bar from the early 70s. I should probably take steps to preserve them. Or at least share them.</comment>


Show HN: jurl – Fast and simple URL parsing for Java - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/anthonynsimon/jurl <comment><USER2> It's nice to see a modern alternative for URL parsing, specially as the java.net.URL equals does not work as expected and the java.net.URI is outdated.

By the way, I took a look at your test cases and you seem to test for some crazy edge cases, like Chinese characters in the host part of the URL and even smileys. Are these valid URLs in general?

<comment><AUTHOR> As I understand it, they are ok, but it depends on the point at which you process the IDN (ToASCII and ToUnicode), this is specified in RFC 3490 ([https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3490](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3490)).</comment></comment>


Google's Naked Face Of Evil - <AUTHOR> http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/googles-naked-face-of-evil/ <comment><AUTHOR> There is never "anyone home" at Google support. Whether it be a non-payment, or other support issue, getting hold of a human being is impossible.

Business interests, consumers, customers all placed disadvantaged, inconvenienced as Google rakes in billions.

I hope some legal action is initiated to right these wrongs.

<comment><USER2> legal action because?

The only thing i can see, is if they actually "owe" you money, but for poor support not so much.</comment></comment>


Publishing Our Internal Enforcement Guidelines and Expanding Our Appeals Process - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/comprehensive-community-standards/ <comment><USER2> I'm interested in this section:

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content/hate_speech)

The guidelines refer to "protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disability or disease."

Under Tier 2 attacks, it bans "Statements of inferiority implying a person's or a group's physical, mental, or moral deficiency."

Several of those protected characteristics -- I'm thinking specifically about religion and sexual orientation -- absolutely have a moral dimension. Religion explicitly deals with morality, and the reason attitudes about sexual orientation have shifted over the last few decades is because views about the morality of gay relationships have shifted.

What I'm wondering is: Would a post criticizing the morality of certain religious adherents violate these standards? Would a post in which someone argues that Obergefell was decided wrongly, and that marriage should be between a man and a woman violate these standards? Would a post in which a person says they believe homosexual acts to be morally wrong violate these standards?

<comment><USER3> Would a post stating the inferiority of people at the middle of the bell curve in these categories be considered a "Tier 2 attack"? Traditionally they have not on Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have reported videos that people share that includes sexual acts, gun violence (with deaths), gang executions and bloody traffic accidents, and I think Facebook removes around 10% of what I report, the rest continues to live on their platform.

However, my friend who takes model pictures (some (most) with not a lot of clothes on) have received month long bans for not covering up nipples correctly, here is some of his shots: [https://www.instagram.com/tonnynathanfoto/](https://www.instagram.com/tonnynathanfoto/), it is interesting how a bit of nipple can result in a month long ban, but someone executing another person on camera is just fine.

<comment><USER5> By incorrect covering of nipples, do you mean this example from his portfolio?

[https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHcR7eg7LZ/?taken- by=tonnynatha...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BhHcR7eg7LZ/?taken- by=tonnynathanfoto)

<comment><USER4> That one passed the filter/reports, I think he was testing it a bit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This reads like an investment bank's disclaimer that's 5 pages long in tiny print at the back when they sell you questionable risky investments.

It's designed to make it look like there is a full vetted and functioning process when at the end of the day, it's just a human mod who makes the call.

Like with banks and other customer care agents, the only times these actions can really be challenged or changed is if there is a furore that affects FB's image.

There is just so much trolling and bullying on fb that if they had a real appeal process, it'll quickly become a flood because if they take Hate speech seriously, then the slippery slope leads them to monitor other online problems that is caused by FB.

So no. I think this is just a nice sounding disclaimer for a process that'll only be used when the next storm hits fb but won't actually help clean up all the hate and evil on fb.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm fascinated by some of the stuff in here.

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_content/adult_nudity_sexual_activity)

> Do not post images of real nude adults, where nudity is defined as... > "visible anus and/or fully nude close-ups of buttocks _unless photoshopped > on a public figure_..."

or this bit:

> Uncovered female nipples except in the context of breastfeeding, birth > giving and after-birth moments, health (for example, post-mastectomy, breast > cancer awareness, or gender confirmation surgery), _or an act of protest_

which would seem to allow people to post nipple photos _to protest Facebook 's no nipple policy_ and get away with it.

<comment><USER8> > and get away with it.

Good luck. With that. It'l still probably be taken down and there's nothing stopping them from denying the appeal as well.

<comment><USER9> Just photoshop a male nipple on top

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm seen a FB announcement every other day these past two weeks. Kogan has it right, Facebook is in a PR crisis, and I think that's happening because the effects of the CA scandal are impacting the business much more than they're letting on.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/facebook- in-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/24/facebook-in-pr-crisis- mode-over-cambridge-analytica-scandal-outrage-hallow-aleksandr-kogan)

</comment><comment><USER11> Viewing the actual guide requires logging into Facebook: [https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/)

<comment><USER12> > We are committed to removing content that encourages real-world harm, > including (but not limited to) physical, financial, and _emotional injury._

(Emphasis mine)

That's rich. Facebook is in the business of intentionally showing users emotionally distressful content on purpose in order to drive them into a depression. They do this on purpose, they tell us about it proudly, they are not shy. Facebook experiments on its users by taking content they now deem bad, and specifically increasing the amount users see it, so as to intentionally affect their mood and make then sad and depressed. Facebook is so proud of it too!

This guide is a bunch of corporate speak for PR. It means nothing to Facebook; it couldn't, they love breaking the rules they try to assign to others.

Edit: Also Facebook happily separates out the time you spend on Facebook from what they call the "real world". I'd argue that logging in to Facebook and seeing any content at all is likely to cause a person "real world harm" for all kinds of reasons. But Facebook would like you to think that only your friends can hurt you in the "real world", not Facebook itself. But they do hurt people. Every day. And that will be x1000 if they helped foreign powers elect a dictator in the USA.

<comment><USER13> Humans are strange creatures. Most people I know on FB literally put their absolute best face forward on there. Pictures of doing things with their family, sharing good things that happen to them, etc. However the net effect is reducing the happiness of everyone. I am not sure that this is a problem Facebook can solve.

[https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study- confirms-t...](https://hbr.org/2017/04/a-new-more-rigorous-study-confirms-the- more-you-use-facebook-the-worse-you-feel)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Hilarious to have this and 2 lines below in the HN feed is a story from vice about how they ignored stolen identities posted to their platform for years - including SSNs, drivers licenses, etc.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16913056)

</comment><comment><USER15> The existence of a formalized system tricks the brain. You start debating the questions the system itself poses, not questioning the things the system holds axiomatic.

For example: Debating the boundaries of Facebook's nudity rules when it comes to breastfeeding, or newsworthy image like that napalm image in news is misdirection. Allowing a nipple here and there is the fake debate Facebook has framed for us.

The real problem is that facebook has decided, for me all my friends, that we're all prudes. Without asking a single one of us, they just decided. They've found that we can't be trusted with the ability to scroll past hardcore porn in our timeline the same way we ignore photos of your ugly dog. Not only can we not handle that, it can't be behind an account setting, or twitter-style clickwall on every photo, or age gated over-18 accounts only. Nope. It's all too harmful of content for us unwashed masses.

It's a con. Even if Facebook doesn't mean it as such. They're constantly conning themselves too.

</comment><comment><USER16> [From False News section]

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authen...](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/integrity_authenticity/false_news/)

> Reducing the distribution of content rated as false by independent third- > party fact-checkers

Wonder who the independent 3rd party fact-checkers are. If one was in the business of "manufacturing consent" and wanted to control what is pushed to the front and what isn't, those fact checkers would be a great starting point. How easy is to influence them?

> Collaborating with academics and other organizations to help solve this > challenging issue

Does that include, say, think-tanks? Specific universities? How are those picked and how are they rewarded for the collaboration. That seems like another easy area to influence. Don't go just to Facebook, but go a step further and try to influence these organization to push a particular story / product / idea etc.

</comment><comment><USER17> But if there's no accountability, then what's the point in publishing it?

They will execute against their published (or private) policies, and there's no external oversight or way to get them to comply with anything other than what they decide are the standards.

It's not a democratic system. It's a private, totalitarian censorship enforced by a corporation with a clear liberal-politics bias ( why? because that's where they think most of their resources are tied up -- their advertisers' liberal city-dwelling customers are wealthier and thus more important than conservative, poorer country folk, and their worker drones -- mostly Cali based -- so FB staff will be predominantly liberal. )</comment>


UK Universities: Is free speech under threat? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938 <comment><USER2> I find it surprising that the article makes no mention of the suppression of debate on Israel/Palestine in UK universities.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics-...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics- take-southampton-university-court-over-israel-conference)

</comment><comment><USER3> "certain" students, "certain" speakers, "certain" discussions - I just can't hear the word "certain" any more without assuming that what I'm reading is yet another angsty, hand-wringing, paranoid-tinged screed about Things These Days, with no specific target, just this anger about these "certain" things that these "certain" people do.

<comment><USER4> Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does. Universities are supposed to be a place of shared knowledge and diverse perspectives. Another example Berkeley, a school which, according to USA Today, "has become known more recently for its violent demonstrations between those with opposing viewpoints." Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.

<comment><USER5> _Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does._

The full text of that example from the article is:

"At the University of Sheffield, Chinese students complained about a film showing state discrimination against Tibetans in China containing an offensive phrase. It was replaced with a different film, still showing discrimination against Tibetans."

It seems to me the last sentence there is rather important for context.

 _Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person /university._

Well, yes, and the overall statistics it presented strongly suggest that the answer to the question in the headline -- "Is free speech under threat?" \-- is "No, not very much."

<comment><USER6> "No, not very much."

So, yes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is more specifically the case that the idea of free speech as a prized element of a society is under threat, than the actual practice of free speech. We need to be mindful of separate things: actual individual free speech events happening, laws about speech, and society's consideration of free speech as a virtue aren't all the same "free speech" thing.

But who is threatening the virtue? Who is The Real Threat To Freedom Here! I think it's actually just various people in various political groups, from progressive students at universities to people with actual power like NY States's Cuomo with his radical anti-BDS laws and executive orders.

<comment><USER8> I like the distinction here. I find the "no platforming" question the most troublesome, because there should be freedom of association and one should not be forced to provide a venue for views that they disagree with. But at the same time, there is a point where limiting access to a venue has a real detrimental effect on free speech.

Universities have an obligation to provide a wide variety of dissenting views and not be eco chambers. But at the same time they have limited space and so they must, at some level, pick and choose which speakers get access to those venues. How does one choose which ideas are valuable enough to get access to limited space?

<comment><USER7> It's mind-boggling that it has to be limited. What are universities for? Every day every university should have hundreds of guests thinkers and grad students streaming through doing paid speeches and Q&As. If half of them are Alex Jones fraudsters, ok, let students protest and leaflet outside all they want, which would be even _more_ exchanging of ideas and facts.

<comment><USER8> _It 's mind-boggling that it has to be limited._

I meant that in terms of physical space availability, of which there is a finite amount. Theres only so many conference rooms that can house a visiting guest speaker.

<comment><USER9> I don't think that's a real issue. It's not like all the controversial speakers are trying to speak at the same university at the same time. Usually these spots are planned weeks or months in advance, plenty of time to book a room.

In fact most of the spots that have been called off were canceled well after they were scheduled and confirmed. If a university for whatever reason does not want to host the speaker at all, then just come right out and say so. Saying "Oh so sorry, we're all booked for the next 6 months!" is just a transparent excuse.

<comment><USER8> Its not specific to those examples though. Think of it like a thought experiment: a university literally can't host everyone so there's _some_ criteria by which a guest needs to be judged.

In America, a lot of the spots were cancelled, IIRC, because protests necessitated increased security that couldn't be arranged or paid for. I'm not sure thats on the university.

<comment><USER10> Protests are an excuse. Protests are allowed and even encouraged by the university.

If the university actually wanted to stop protests, it would be trivial. Simply remove all support for protesters. (make this known in advance) This means: access cards stop working, transcripts are made unavailable, employees are fired, degrees are revoked, scholarships are terminated... some of this can be retroactive too.

When this has been done even in relatively limited form, protesters quickly stopped causing trouble. When the university gives tacit approval to the protesters, things quickly spiral out of control.

<comment><USER8> Protesting is a pretty fundamental right and societal value in America though. Cracking down on protests is, in my view, just as authoritarian as what the universities are accused of.

<comment><USER9> Rioting is not a fundamental right. An actual peaceful protest would not require prohibitively costly security arrangements.

<comment><USER8> Whether something is a riot is often subjective and a lot of security arrangements are made for peaceful protests. After all a peaceful protest may turn into a riot. Or it may remain peaceful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> UK doesn't have free speech to begin with.

<comment><USER12> "Free speech" is a loaded term. In the US, you can't just say whatever you want without consequence, which is what lots of people seem to think "free speech" means.

Neither slander nor obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. Same goes for so-called "fighting words." Incitement of lawlessness is not protected. Incitement of suicide will likely be tested soon, but a lower court has ruled it is not protected.

And that's just a fraction of the types of speech not protected by the US Constitution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> An odd headline, given that free speech is only a 'negative' right in the UK

<comment><AUTHOR> No it isn't. Read the convention rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It tickled me that Westminster University has a policy of not allowing people to speak who are intolerant of free speech. Presumably no representative of the university can ever speak. That must be hard for them.

<comment> crooked-v [https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral- precept-1af7007d6376)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Betteridge's law of headlines.</comment>


Sean Parker Sees a Bright Future for Chatroulette - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_chatroulette_broadcast.php

<comment><USER2> Chatroulette is too notorious. It would be easier to build a new site with the same basic concept and advertise as SFW.

Plus, instant bans for anything inappropriate. That is what tinychat.com had to do when they wanted to new advertisers. Don't know how they did it but you get IP banned within a minute of getting naked.</comment>


Body Camera Once Again Catches an NYPD Officer Planting Drugs in Someone's Car - <AUTHOR> https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200318/19164444128/body-camera-once-again-catches-nypd-officer-planting-drugs-someones-car.shtml <comment><USER2> This reads like some sort of dark comedy.

These police officers plant drugs on the poor guy's car, they then take him out. He wasn't even the driver BTW.

Because he asks them to be careful of his recently stitched up stab wound the officers decide to toss him on the ground breaking open his stitches and causing him medical problems.

Then, they hold him for two weeks because of course he can't pay bail.

When it comes to light that the officers planted the evidence... mind you, not because the department handed over the footage, but because a non-profit got their hands on it... the case gets dropped.

The officers walk away with no punishment and the man got nothing for the two weeks he had to spend with ouy of a job and for his new medical expenses.

Is there a way to just start over when it comes to policing in America? Stories like these make me think that our problems are so deeply rooted that this is the only way to resolve them.

<comment><USER3> If this is true the guy can sue and should do so.

<comment><USER4> There is a logical progression here that I think means sueing isn't necessary:

Are police protected by law from coming under charges such as assault, kidnapping, breaking and entering, manslaughter, etc, if those things are done in the course of duty? \- Yes

Are police required to follow certain regulations in order to retain those legal protections? \- Yes

Do those regulations allow for drugs to be intentionally planted, then used as false evidence for an arrest? \- No

Were these officers under special legal protection during this arrest? \- No

Was this arrest legal? \- No

Are these officers solely liable for their actions, as any other person would be? \- Yes

Did they assault and kidnap a man, then perjure themselves on a legal document? \- Yes

Is the State District Attorney required to press criminal charges against them? \- Yes

Are they required to be tried in front of a jury of 12 other citizens? \- Yes

<comment><USER5> Can someone please identify and name the DA who's not doing his job? This guy needs notoriety. Where best to put a billboard?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Isn't it strange how we never had this many problems with bad cops before the invention of body cameras? It's a pity that the upright and moral institution of policing in the US, from its noble origins in runaway slave patrols, has been suddenly and inexplicably corrupted of late.

<comment><USER7> You assume there wasn't problems before, because none was being brought to public attention. You also assume there has been an increase in corruption because there is an increase in problems, as you say it.

You are linking two separate issues through correlation and implying causation, which is a fallacy.

<comment><USER8> I'm reasonably sure that comment was dripping with sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why isn't it standard for all body cam footage of an arrest to automatically be entered as evidence? It seems like even for a judge to accept a plea deal, they should be forced to see the footage. Someone should be catching things as clear as this.

<comment><USER10> > Why isn't it standard for all body cam footage of an arrest to automatically > be entered as evidence? It seems like even for a judge to accept a plea > deal, they should be forced to see the footage. Someone should be catching > things as clear as this.

Because they don't have an incentive to do so and have every incentive to not do so.

I won't go into a great deal of detail, but in short: getting this as discovery without an attorney present and actively forcing the Courts to release it won't yield much, it is often entirely impossible to do so in time by the forced court dates forcing most people to accept plea deals if they cannot afford legal counsel, getting even the District Attorneys to review this footage before moving with a case in time of said case is equally unlikely (combination of apathetic and being overwhelmed), and Judges' will ALWAYS favour with an officers recount of events UNTIL FORCED for compelling reasons to over turn this. Which means an almost certain guilty verdict.

Discovery in general is so hard to get, and they can/do use a series of excuses; not limited to using proprietary software to release the body cam footage which is not compatible with any other system. Even between other attorneys and jurisdictions.

You need to realize that you're assumed to be guilty in the Legal system, and the burden and responsibility to prove otherwise is on the defendant: who is possibly injured (physically as well as mentally), all the while you're incurring costs left and right for everything (even wrongful arrest cases), in addition to apathetic-callused District Attorneys/Public Defendants just trying to bide their time and not 'rock the boat' until getting to the next level of their careers and are often forcing people to just accept untenable time frames for court dates or pleas deals to just churn the numbers and look good in front of the Judge who they will encounter again in their career(s).

<comment><USER11> So... on another note... what were the career prospects like for a mid-level ex-Okhrana officer ca. 1918?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The post on r/protectandserve got immediately locked:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/fl57x6/nyp...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/fl57x6/nypd_officer_caught_apparently_planting_marijuana/)

<comment><USER13> Try r/bad_cop_no_donut

<comment><USER12> The responses there are predictable and uninteresting. I'm much more interested to see how a cop subreddit responds to this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Don't consent to a search, ever. Even if they say they have probable cause. Even if you actually did what they accuse you of. A good attorney may be able to get the evidence tossed from an unconstitutional search. But the best attorney can't get anything done if you consent. And if you allow a search and they plant evidence you're really pushing a rock up a hill.

<comment><USER15> If you are black, and you don't consent to a search, you are probably getting arrested for "resisting arrest" (I've had it happen to a friend). It's a lose- lose situation.

<comment><USER16> Honestly, if I was black, I would just lay down with my hands behind my back anytime I was asked to be searched and never consent. It's certainly a rights violation, but I'd rather fight an illegal search/seizure case than a resisting arrest case. If they want to arrest you, they will, and I'd rather make that as easy as possible.

However, since I'm white and relatively well off, I'll try my chances with talking my way out of the search.

<comment><USER17> They will simply beat you while shouting "STOP RESISTING ARREST"; do you really think it's that simple?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How on earth is the on/off switch for the body camera under the officer's control?

<comment><USER19> Furthermore: if we don't trust them not to turn off the cameras, we shouldn't be trusting them to be cops.

<comment><USER20> Trust, but verify.

<comment><USER21> not great for super high stakes stuff (which interacting with US law enforcement absolutely is, given your life may be in jeopardy) - really need a streaming externally enforced trust and confirmation mechanism... perhaps something like, i dunno, oversight? just brainstorming here though.

<comment><USER20> Isn't there Internal Affairs? Though the problem is the incentive is not there. Budget problems prevent hiring only good candidates, and similarly the courts don't think cities should be paying a lot after these bad apples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> In all the TV shows I've ever seen featuring police as protagonists, I believe 100% of them show police corruption as part of standard procedure.

And it's gotten far, far worse over the years. Dick Wolf's "Law & Order" (1990) sometimes had rather subtle corruption, while his "Chicago P.D." (2014) makes torture a primary investigative method in every episode. Even in the rare case where a corrupt cop is taken down on TV, it's done by a slightly less corrupt cop.

Is it any surprise that we see issues with police in real life, when our entertainment has normalized much more brutal behavior? There's a huge discrepancy here. In the fictional world, torture works, and corruption always ends up being justified.

I love a good crime story, but all I see today is producers competing for who can be the most outrageous.

<comment><USER23> Even if they don't show corruption, they do show 100% correct identification of suspect and 100% conviction rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I hope every case this officer has ever been involved in gets re-examined. Any defense attorney worth anything should raise hell over it.

<comment><USER25> This is the sort of poisonous waters where basically anything this officer has ever said as part of their job should be instantly discounted. Anyone convicted based solely on the testimony of this officer should be released, their record stricken, and they should be well compensated for what must be _assumed_ to be false evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The cops are still in patrol. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER27> So the article is just going to dismiss the fact that he was targeting specifically Afro-Americans?

Not only he was setting people up, but he was specifically setting up black people. So fucked up.

</comment><comment><USER28> > The video the NYPD kept hidden from the public shows officers removing Jason > Serrano from the car, ignoring his warnings that he had just been stitched > up after being stabbed in the stomach. The cops decided Serrano's reluctance > was an invitation to throw him on the ground and reopen his wound. Once they > were done brutalizing Serrano, they decided this might pose less of a > problem for them if they came up with something they could bust him for.

> As Serrano curls up on the sidewalk, bleeding from his wound, and as more > officers and bystanders gather on the scene waiting for an ambulance, > Pastran searches Serrano's jacket. "We gotta find something," Erickson tells > him. [...] Erickson again returns to the car and continues to meticulously > search it, while Pastran briefs a supervisor who has arrived on the scene. > Erickson then appears to place something in the car's drink holder, before > opening the front seat's console and a small toiletry box. Erickson then > says "I smell a little weed" just as he appears to pick up and move the > little bud he seemed to have dropped in the drink holder moments earlier. > Erickson then searches the back of the car, and when Pastran approaches, the > two exchange a charged look as Erickson tells Pastran "I see nothing. … You > know what I mean?" He then returns to search the front seat area for a third > time, this time dropping a larger bud in the drink holder and saying, > "There's a little bit of weed."

> That's the end result of the NYPD's internal investigation deciding two > years ago that planting evidence was no big deal. The cop went back out on > the street with a partner who enabled evidence-planting. Serrano didn't > spend two weeks in jail but he did spend five days handcuffed to a hospital > bed. He pled guilty to the resisting arrest charge, even though it was a > blatantly bogus arrest.

As I usually ask in these sorts of threads: what are we going to do about this?

Many police officers seem to have just the right combination of poor incentives, mental illness, and power-drunkenness sufficient to result in wanton lying, lawlessness, and victimization.

This is not a situation compatible with a society in which thoughtful, calm, mature innovation unto a pursuit of happiness can occur.

So what's the plan? How can we approach this with an adult disposition and put an end to this bizarre experiment of giving the state unchecked power?

<comment><USER29> I feel sure the vast majority of Police officers are doing upstanding work, so it's a matter of identifying and punishing the bad apples. Once a few have been targeted and made examples of, surely the rest of the bad apples will smarten up, or quit.

Without question, these officers should be charged with battery, kidnapping, planting false evidence, unlawful arrest, possession of drugs, etc. etc.

Minimum 5 years jail each, maybe 10.

It's not like they did any of this by accident. Yes, five to ten years in jail will ruin their lives, and it's important to remember they did it to themselves.

We place our trust in them, and they're caught on camera behaving like regular street thugs. This is utterly unacceptable and should be eliminated.

<comment><USER30> _I feel sure the vast majority of Police officers are doing upstanding work, so it 's a matter of identifying and punishing the bad apples._

I strongly disagree that the vast majority of police office are doing upstanding work. Officers don't testify against each other. They refuse to help investigations of colleagues. The whole thin blue line mentality is a stain on the whole profession. As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing." Police officers that refuse to call out the bad apples are themselves bad apples.

<comment><USER10> > I strongly disagree that the vast majority of police office are doing > upstanding work. Officers don't testify against each other. They refuse to > help investigations of colleagues. The whole thin blue line mentality is a > stain on the whole profession.

I think this comes from a person based on ignorance, in that they usually have limited to no exposure to most LEO; or alternatively, they have vested interests in keeping that narrative up.

To this day I still cannot fathom not just how the 'blue line' practices holds true to this day given all the cameras, but they CAN AND DO PURPOSELY LIE and are allowed to do so with impunity in court. This is what is considered law enforcement in the US?!

Punishing them is limited in scope, you can at best get minor monetary compensation (which is tax derived) when they abuse their power, but as seen with this example they're allowed to return to their patrol in most cases, or given a paid leave of absence when its deemed too embarrassing to sweep under the rug.

>> How on earth is the on/off switch for the body camera under the officer's control?

Honestly, plausible deniability; here is a horrid case in which you can see (Graphic/NSFW) they can use that to justify their violent behaviour as small/thin woman is forcefully strapped down, choked and repeatedly tazed by a group of officers claiming she was 'suicidal' but somehow that part wasn't recorded but is seen complying with the officers requests:

[https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/woman-sues- alleges-...](https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/woman-sues-alleges- excessive-force-boulder-county-jail/73-a7898c65-8d79-4630-83ce-478a83cba090)

Worth noting, as it coincides with the quote above its not just police but also the Court system the enables their behaviour, the local State court ruled in favour of the police stating the use of force was justified; it wasn't until it was taken to the Supreme Court that it was exposed to the public what took place with body cam footage.

> The cops in prosperous, egalitarian places are generally pretty chill, so > the idea is to recreate those conditions.

God, I'm just going to put aside how absolutely elitist this statement is, but consider that the case above took place in Boulder, CO. Where for a few years the average home price was well over $1 million dollars, and her initial arrest took place in the Downtown mall that's typically yuppy-centric shops.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> During an outbreak why the fuck are we still dealing with drug crimes?

<comment><USER32> Creating criminals is necessary to keep prisons crowded and the associated businesses going. Just like hotels.

<comment><USER31> Maybe its time to kill these businesses?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Russia and the US are so similar actually.

<comment><USER34> I've always thought so. But the US does a far better job re appearances, and has far better propaganda.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> the more policemen, the more trouble.

</comment><comment><USER36> Makes you wonder how many people are in jail or have criminal records because of corrupt cops.

If a cop plants drugs/evidence on you, how do you fight the charge without video proof? Especially if another cop or the cop's partner backs up the "planter"?

People programmed to trust cops, so your word vs 2+ cops would mean nothing. You are entirely at the mercy of corrupt cops, corrupt prosecutors, corrupt system. Lets be honest here, most of us here would take the cops' side without the video proof.

Essentially, your best bet is to plead guilty to lesser charges. But your criminal record will be an albatross around your neck and ruin your life.

<comment><USER37> Yes, and jails are about to become (if they haven't already) massively burdened by the COVID outbreak.

Over-policing and mass-incarceration in America are about to produce a massive, preventable loss of life.

<comment><USER38> Some (probably inadequate) steps are being taken to mitigate the magnitude of that problem.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us- canada-51947802](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51947802)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> so of all those minorities you see pulled over on the curb, 90% of them were just being arbitrarily frisked and had nothing on them and were not arrested, but you wouldn't know the difference, some of the other 10% had drugs planted on them, and many of those weren't their first random stop

the other validation of all those arrests and prison population records, many of them simply took the plea deal or violated parole where anything from any minor infraction to exercising a freedom you already have such as staying out after a certain hour imprisons them for the original length of the sentence

the other validation is all the violent crime stats, which comes from communities demanding certain areas are policed, based on the images of 90% non-arrests already burned into their mind

all while all the minorities have been trying to say this is exactly what has been happening while the majority power remains in actual and intentional denial, now relying solely on an unquantifiable comfort that this is statistically rare, because it has to be, .... right?

</comment><comment><USER40> Consider:

\- how many people don't vote because it's a rigged sham that's setup to benefit the Property party, not the people

\- how poor and how close to homelessness most average people are

\- how corrupt and unaccountable the police are

\- the nation with the highest incarceration rate except Seychelles, for- profit prisons, and the legal slavery loophole exploited by corporations

\- a nation without a viable healthcare or mental healthcare system

\- a nation that gives public commons and public services over to for-profit corporations

The revolution is that much closer because the US has been gradually becoming a banana republic failed state for at least 50 years, if not 70.

<comment><USER41> "How many people don't vote because it's a rigged sham that's setup to benefit the Property party, not the people"

If you don't vote, you don't have a say.</comment></comment>


Goodbye to academic research - <AUTHOR> http://blog.devicerandom.org/2011/02/18/getting-a-life/

<comment><USER2> Reading this article makes me realize I certainly picked the road not taken. Last year I quit my job as the Director of IT at a small pharma, dropped out of a company-paid MBA program, drastically reduced my expenses, and started doing independent research. A lot of people around me thought I was crazy especially since I wasn't going the PhD or startup route either. In my mind though, it seems pretty logical - I want to do real computer science research without all the BS that goes on with academia or corporate research lab.

I'm more productive when working solo than in teams. And I already have a specific research project in mind. All I needed was to plan my life so I'd have 50-60hr/week free after my bills were paid. For the past two months, I've been working on my research project diligently and without any external delays. I know I won't get a degree out of this and I doubt I can get published but since that's not my end-goal, it doesn't matter. I am looking for a hardware hacker if anyone is interested - it is a very fun/rewarding project: <http://ktype.net>

<comment><USER3> You wrote:

"I know I won't get a degree out of this and I doubt I can get published"

Sorry to disagree! :-)!

For getting published, try some journal on human-computer interaction. Since you know much more about your field than I do, look for other journal 'varieties' as well.

For what you are doing, that is, a lot of independent, call it, R&D, if you get results anything like what you want, then it would be surprising if you didn't have something publishable. If this argument is not enough, then look at much of what does get published and conclude that much of it is not very high quality stuff!

Uh, one way to improve your paper a notch or two over what is common is just to write well, say, well organized, clear, including writing good English with good spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

Once you are published at least once, better, say, three times, sorry, but you should be able to get a Ph.D.! :-)! Maybe this is a big disappointment, but it's true!

How then to get a Ph.D? Four points:

(1) At at least some of the best US research universities, there is no coursework requirement for a Ph.D.

(2) The requirement for a dissertation is, say, "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication". Since you've already been there, done that, got the T-shirt, there's no question. Big, huge advantage.

(3) One more requirement would likely be the qualifying exams. These exams are to show that you are 'qualified' to move on to research and do research. But, uh, did I mention that you've already been there, done that, got the T-shirt? The difficulty of the qualifying exams varies widely, but generally the 'polish on your halo' can be important in deciding who passes.

So, it can be good to have some high quality halo polish; here are three: (A) Some of the best halo polish is published papers, the more papers, more highly regarded, the better the polish. (B) More halo polish is when it looks like you might be a successful entrepreneur who gets good publicity for the university and, maybe later on, is, uh, 'thankful and generous'! (C) More good polish is that you actually did this work, conceived it, took it on, got it done, independently, which means you are promising as a good researcher for the future bringing more good publicity to the university.

(4) There may be a requirement for 'residency' for a year. This can mean that maybe you show up on campus some day in September and again in the spring to defend your dissertation which you submit by taking a stack of your published papers and putting a big staple in the UL corner.

For more:

You should pick the university and department carefully. You might try, say, the bio-engineering program at Johns Hopkins. I would focus on such higher end engineering programs with 'biology' contact. Of course try MIT and Cal Tech. Don't settle for Southern Sawgrass U.

You may be able to get a research grant, before, during, or after your Ph.D. program: At your university, ask the people who know about grant sources. Maybe the US DoD VA would give you a grant. A research grant is the 'magic bullet' to rapid progress in academics because you are bringing money to the university! You will understand better when you see what fraction of the money the university keeps for 'overhead'! Did I hear someone say, "Money talks."?

Uh, one way to pick a department and prof: Pick your journal carefully! That is, if you want to get into program A with full prof P editor of relevant journal X, then submit your paper to journal X and, if it is accepted, then, uh, take 'advantage' of this contact you made with prof P to get your Ph.D. Note: It can be possible for prof P to 'direct' your dissertation at a school not his.

Uh, once your paper is accepted, prof P may invite you to present your paper at his conference on Computer-Human Interaction or some such. Likely accept! Then that's two bullets on your CV.

Note: When you submit your paper, likely you do not have to give any significant biographical information at all. So, you don't need a high school transcript! In particular, it doesn't have to be clear if you have a Ph.D. or not. So, before your Ph.D., you are fully 'qualified' to submit a paper.

Note: Commonly a journal plays pocket pool with your paper for a year before sending you results of reviews. So, two rejections and one acceptance would take three years. Bummer.

So, to speed up the process, go online, find maybe 50 appropriate journals, to the editor in chief of each, via e-mail or on paper, write a nice, one page letter outlining your paper and asking "might your journal be interested?", enclose a copy of your paper, and, then, only from the responses make a 'formal submission'.

Uh, the research universities make a big, huge deal out of 'research' both for the faculty and for at least the Ph.D. students. Else they'd have to know something about the real world and teach it, right? Horrors!

Uh, the research universities long since concluded that by a wide margin the most difficult part of a Ph.D. and the usual point of failure is just the research for the dissertation. For some students, that work is hard enough to threaten their life (literally). For others, it's put their feet up for an afternoon, think up some good stuff, write it up, send it in, get it accepted for publication, and shout "Done!".

In my opinion, you've already passed the main obstacle: You've decided to do some independent work.

For more, you've picked a problem, have some productive lines of attack, and are making progress.

For more, if you get the research results you have in mind, then you will have something "new, correct, and significant": "New"? No doubt what you are working on does not yet exist. "Correct"? It works! "Significant"? Ask Hawking or many people and/or groups working with the handicapped. E.g., ask the US DoD VA.

You can do something cute here: You satisfy "significant" because you solve a practical problem and not because you have a theorem or counterexample that settles some old conjecture about differential cohomology that only six people in the world know about. Readers listen up: This example makes a useful, general point!

Presto: "New, correct, and significant" are the usual criteria for publication!

That is, you've already given up on taking a problem from a prof, pleasing a prof, caring mostly about what will please a prof, looking for praise, approval, status, prestige, guidance, 'mentoring' from a prof, etc.

But, but, but, your work would never get venture funding, right? Wrong! One of the 'themes' Brad Feld likes to pursue is human-computer interaction, especially without a traditional keyboard! Uh, if you had Hawking, the DoD VA, and some organization for the handicapped on your side, had some beta testers, ..., then you might get a venture capital check -- it's not hopeless.

Sorry to disagree with your:

"I know I won't get a degree out of this and I doubt I can get published". :-)!

There's an old quote: "Be wise; generalize.".

Okay: How I got a Ph.D.: I started with a practical problem I'd identified and worked on before grad school. I saw a solution intuitively. In my first year in grad school, I took some advanced math that let me turn my intuitive stuff into some solid theorems and proofs for a solution, and in my first summer independently I did that. That work was all but the software and typing for my dissertation.

For some interim 'halo polish', I saw a problem, thought for a few evenings, roughly saw a solution, and then signed up for a 'reading course' on that problem. I worked for a few more days and saw a much nicer solution, wrote it up, turned it in, and was done with the reading course in two weeks. The work looked publishable and was -- I published it later. So, in two weeks I'd created "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication", that is, satisfied the requirement for a dissertation. Good halo polish.

A student who does such independent work is "difficult", but on this point read the recent Fred Wilson blog at his AVC.COM.

You will not be the first to do some independent work and later get a Ph.D. for it. Uh, one of the biggest topics now in computer science is a 'good' algorithm as in the set of algorithms P as in the question P versus NP. Well, likely and apparently the formulator of a 'good' algorithm was Jack Edmonds. Can get a start on him at

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Edmonds>

Yes, he also won a von Neumann prize, etc. Little things like that!

As at Wikipedia, he was at University of Maryland (UM). Uh, as I heard the story, he was not a happy Ph.D. student at UM so left to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) about 40 miles away. Then he published some good work in graph theory. Finally some of the math faculty at UM, feeling a little guilty, drove to NBS, smoked a peace pipe, and said essentially "Put a staple in the UL corner of your papers and we'll be pleased to call it a Ph.D. dissertation in our department.".

Final point: Of course, D. Knuth knows about academics. Well buried in 'The TeXBook' is:

"The traditional way is to put off all creative aspects until the last part of graduate school. For seventeen or more years, a student is taught 'examsmanship', then suddenly after passing enough exams in graduate school he's told to do something original."

Yes, there very much is a conflict here: The approach to getting into grad school can strongly conflict with the approach to writing a dissertation.

<comment><USER4> This is a very interesting comment. It reads a bit like "phd hacking". Did you try this? The work done by the OP is indeed has potential to be published. The above comment, while written in an encouraging tone, has some caveats that might be worth pointing out.

"(1) At at least some of the best US research universities, there is no coursework requirement for a Ph.D."

* I find that to be untrue. In my case, I had a M.S. before applying, and still had to take nearly 2 years of required coursework. It depends on the program, but I have not heard of any U.S. program that will accept a B.S. and not have required classes.

"(2) The requirement for a dissertation is, say, "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication". Since you've already been there, done that, got the T-shirt, there's no question. Big, huge advantage."

* Most students accepted to the best PhD programs (computer science) will already have top-tier publications before entering. It is definitely a good thing to have a publication, but rather than being finished, you will have just begun.

"(3) One more requirement would likely be the qualifying exams. These exams are to show that you are 'qualified' to move on to research and do research. But, uh, did I mention that you've already been there, done that, got the T-shirt?"

* Quals will still require reading deeply from the literature. You will be expected to know all the fundamentals in your computer science area to pass. Having published is irrelevant here.

"Maybe the US DoD VA would give you a grant."

* Often only professors can apply for the big grants, and writing a grant is actually non-trivial. They need to see a fantastic track record, a solid proven team, and often nods to diversity and educating the public. Some students will help their advisors write the grant, but in the end it's the advisor who doles out the money and is the PI.

I feel the attitude of professors/academia being so easy to fool to be somewhat overstated here. I won't go into the "ease of publishing" comments, but my first top-tier publication took 3 years with many rejections, when I was an a non-student doing research. I also did a lot of research that was rejected and went into the "paper graveyard". After doing it a few times, publishing is significantly easier since you will better know the methodology, literature, and how to write academically. I'm not trying to be discouraging, but I find the above comment to be optimistic but a bit exaggerated.

<comment><USER3> Part I

Sorry you had problems. Many people have had problems, even very serious ones. I've seen it happen too often that a Ph.D. program causes stress, for years, and that is well known to cause depression, clinical depression, and even suicide. I've seen really good, talented, dedicated, fantastic students have their lives and themselves be ruined.

For all my points you question, my claims are rock solid.

You wrote:

"Did you try this?".

Yes, as I indicated, I did "try this", and it did work. I hold a Ph.D. in Engineering from one of the best research universities in the world. The work I did was really some applied math with theorems and proofs. I did the work as 'operations research', but it could as well be called 'computer science' or even 'electrical engineering'. The work might also fit some 'interdisciplinary' applied math programs. The Chairman of the committee that approved the work was from outside my department and a Member, US National Academy of Engineering and Editor in Chief of one of the world's best relevant journals. One of the world's best profs in operations research chided me for not publishing: I didn't want to publish it and, instead, wanted to sell it. I certainly didn't just want to give it away. I do not now nor have I ever had any academic career aspirations at all. So, I have had no desire to build a record of academic publications.

"It reads a bit like 'phd hacking'."

I don't call it 'hacking'. But, it is a play on several points. I mention two:

(1) Universities want the big deal to be research. Okay, take advantage of that or at least go along with it. Then one way to know if have some 'research' is just to publish it. In the end, once out of school, the first criterion for 'research' is that it's published.

Commonly publication is also the last criterion since, say, short of lots of citations or an actual prestigious prize, it's tough to do more evaluation. It's tough enough for the field just to review the paper; asking for department chairs, school deans, and promotion committees to do much more with the paper is a bit much.

In school, some profs try to ask for more than just 'publishable' in ways that are often cruel, irrelevant, exploitative, destructive, domineering, demeaning, insulting, sadistic, etc. So, a way, in part or in total, around such nonsense is just to publish.

(2) Another point is in engineering, if work solves an important practical problem, then that fact can be used to meet the requirement for "significant". Otherwise "significant" can be in the eye of the beholder and tough to be objective about.

With this 'hack', can work around the usual, 'expected' slog through courses, qualifying exams as a 'filter', advanced courses as more 'filters', demonstrations of 'academic devotion', sacrifice, and shedding of blood, sweat, and tears, slave labor for profs on their research projects, begging a prof for a 'dissertation topic', hoping, praying that the prof likes the work, pleasing all profs on a committee of five, etc. Good way to ruin a life. "Have to be smart to get a Ph.D.", and one way to use such smarts is to avoid slogging through that long, muddy swamp. I outlined a way.

You quoted my:

"(1) At at least some of the best US research universities, there is no coursework requirement for a Ph.D."

and wrote

"I find that to be untrue."

You can't find my statement to be "untrue"! Maybe it wasn't true at the school you went to, but that is not relevant to my claim: I didn't say that no coursework holds at every school.

To make my claim true, I need find only two schools where my coursework remark holds. Well, at one time, I knew of three top research universities in the US NE, two in the Ivy League, where official statements of the universities and/or selected departments flatly stated that there was no coursework requirement for a Ph.D. Neither was there a Master's requirement.

The part about "the best US research universities" is important: At Siawash State U., the faculty is so insecure that they will drag students through no end of hell. They can ask for over 100 credit hours of courses. It can appear they want the student two show up at the qualifying exams carrying all of the QA section of the library between their ears. The faculty research sucks, and they believe that a Ph.D. is about 'acquiring knowledge'. BS: At the top schools, a Ph.D. is about the research. Trying to carry the library around between two ears is for fools.

At the top schools, the 'coursework' a student should know is to cover basic material in the field, say, enough to teach ugrad courses. The rest of 'coursework' is to get ready for doing research. If the student has already done the research and published it, then they have proven that they are ready to do research.

Indeed, one Ivy League research university, in a department likely the best in its field in the world, has flatly stated that graduate students are expected to learn the basic material on their own, that no courses are offered for such material, and that the graduate courses are introductions to research in fields by experts in those fields. They also stated that grad students are expected to have some research underway in their first year. And they also want grad students out in three years.

A secret: At such universities, commonly graduate courses are not really 'graded'. Again, the purpose is the 'research', not the courses, credits, grades, or learning.

Did I mention that the main point was just the research?

Then how the heck to evaluate the research? There is a way, in academics essentially only one very good way: Publish it. Better? Okay, publish in a 'high quality' journal. For more? Win a prize. Maybe get asked by the NSF to be a grant reviewer. Maybe become a journal reviewer, editor, or editor in chief. Usually conference proceedings are less highly regarded. But basically, especially for grad students, just publish, and asking for additional criteria is a fool's errand for all concerned. Schools that don't realize such things should be avoided.

To be more clear, for the 'standards' of what is good research, do not look to the fantasy dreams of some dissertation committees and, instead, look at what's in the better journals.

There is more: Going back decades there are far too many horror stories about sadistic abuse of grad students. So some good universities just set up some good criteria that strongly cut out the sadistic abuse: E.g., the requirement for a dissertation can be, as I said, "an original contribution to knowledge worthy of publication". Implicit but very clear is, if the student and his advisors cannot agree, then the student can just PUBLISH the stuff. Then the faculty committee members essentially have to back down and sign off on his dissertation.

There's more: The student may have whatever 'relations' with his dissertation advisors and department. So, make the process so that the dissertation is to be approved by a committee with majority from outside the student's department and Chairman from outside the student's department. So, the student gets a fresh, maybe more objective, collection of 'reviewers'.

And, if you were a dean, what other standards and processes would you set up that could be executed effectively?

You wrote:

"Most students accepted to the best PhD programs (computer science) will already have top-tier publications before entering. It is definitely a good thing to have a publication, but rather than being finished, you will have just begun."

Maybe some such holds, but this process can't work well. It's doomed to failure. As I outlined, there just is not any chance of reasonable criteria for research quality for students other than publication in a decently good journal.

So, for a program such as you outlined, the whole thing is a fool's errand for both a student and the faculty: Bluntly, a student with "top-tier publications" has proven that they have gotten nearly everything important from a Ph.D. degree program that they could hope to get. The faculty has no more to give them. Indeed, "top-tied publications" are in practice mostly the only thing the faculty members can hope for for themselves in their own careers. Thus the student's formal education is over, done with, completed. If the school doesn't know that, then the student should go to a different school.

<comment><USER5> Just a small comment--Princeton used to not require coursework--only quals. but it is rare to see this in current universities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're only getting one side of this, and before you find yourself in complete agreement ask yourself this: Are you agreeing because it confirms your bias and opinion of the academic system?

I got a PhD from Cambridge. Everyone I worked with was helpful to a fault. Everyone shared credit when it was due, and declined offers of credit when they felt they hadn't contributed enough.

I got my PhD, got a 3 year post-doc, changed fields into another 3 year post- doc, then got head-hunted into industry.

My experience of academia couldn't be more different from the one described here.

There's a story told of an elderly gentleman sitting sunning himself outside the city gates when a traveller came by. "What are people like here?" asked the traveller. "What were they like where you came from?" asked the elderly gentleman. Then no matter what the answer, he'd always say: "You'll find people here pretty much the same."

I'm not saying that this individual didn't have bad experiences, I'm not saying he deserved them, I'm not saying academia is all roses, and I'm not saying manipulative sociopaths don't exist. They do.

But my personal experience is different.

<comment><USER7> If I remember correctly you studied math, didn't you? Competition for a job in math is way lower than it is for biological sciences. The reason is that the current model of a successful biology lab is that of a PI leading a number of students and postdocs anywhere from 5 to 20. There is NO WAY that all of them are going to find a job in academia. Germany alone produces in one year the same number of PhDs as there are professors in the country. Ratios are not very different in UK and US. Most of the competition happens in the biological sciences: you can run math or CS research by yourself. Difficult to do the same in biology.

I've written about it here: [http://gilest.ro/2010/what-has-changed-in- science-and-what-m...](http://gilest.ro/2010/what-has-changed-in-science-and- what-must-change/)

<comment><USER8> "Competition for a job in math is way lower than it is for biological sciences."

Actually, the opposite is true, at least in the United States. Many more Biological Science PhDs are granted relative to mathematics, but there is also a lot more funding in the life sciences relative to mathematics.

The mathematics job market is more similar to the notorious humanities market than to the life sciences.

<comment><USER7> You hardly have postdoctoral positions in math, physics and social sciences. Lots of people still manage to get an assistant professor position after PhD. Postdocs emerged only recently and they are a _buffer_ for those who cannot get a TT job after PhD. In biology it is absolutely normaly, in fact necessary, to go through ~5 yrs of postdoc before dreaming of applying. The estimates I know about math is that 1/5 of graduated get a job in academia. In biology is about order of magnitude more difficult (some less backed up estimates even claim is 1/300).

<comment><USER8> "You hardly have postdoctoral positions in math, physics and social sciences."

I don't know anything about the social sciences. In physics, I know that postdocs are absolutely necessary and expected, to the same degree that they are in the life sciences.

Mathematics is a little different. There are a _very_ small minority of prodigy-types that go right from graduate school to the tenure track. However, post-doc's are still the norm, although they don't go by the name 'postdoc.' Usually they are pronounced 'visiting assistant professor' or 'instructor.'

Here's an example of a 'postdoc' in mathematics. All of the big universities have them:

<http://www.mathjobs.org/jobs/jobs/1815>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is how many, many professions work. Musicians, writers, inventors, athletes, research scientists, pilots, and even small business owners all have the same career path. A few really driven, really lucky ones win the lottery and get to be household names. A small minority (maybe 1 - 5%) make an upper middle class living. The other 99% work for poor wages until they give up or get used up. It sucks, but it's hardly unique to science. If you're in a profession with a massive oversupply of labor, you can pretty much be guaranteed to see this kind of structure.

I also spent half the article thinking that the author's struggles with vocabulary and grammar might explain his/her struggles to get ahead. Perhaps he/she is a non-native speaker and that's adding to the trouble?

<comment><USER10> As an ex-classical musician, I can attest to your first point. However, the science Ph.D. glut seems to be generating more angst these days than it used to. I attribute this in part to rising tuition costs and greater student debt loads and an ever increasing disparity between supply and demand. I believe this Economist article was recently referenced on HN:

<http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223>

 _Indeed, the production of PhDs has far outstripped demand for university lecturers. In a recent book, Andrew Hacker and Claudia Dreifus, an academic and a journalist, report that America produced more than 100,000 doctoral degrees between 2005 and 2009. In the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships. Using PhD students to do much of the undergraduate teaching cuts the number of full-time jobs._

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Having spent some time in the academia sausage factory, I think this guy is fairly close to the mark. A lot of time and effort is consumed simply writing grants and genuflecting for government money. A perpetual stream of cheap labor (postdocs) is necessary to keep the cash spigot flowing, even though many of them have zero chance for a real career in their chosen field. I've seen incredibly petty behavior over attribution and credit on papers.

I think most scientific progress happens in spite of the academic system, and not because of it. In some ways the old system of patronage was superior -- you had a direct connection between a king or wealthy merchant who had an interest in something, and the scientists who needed funding to investigate it, instead of a vast bureaucracy that probably consumes more than the total amount it exists to allocate.

</comment><comment><USER12> My current theory for success in academia (and I'm not an academic so take it with a grain of salt) is a sort of synthesis of Dick Hamming's thoughts and other things I've read.

1\. The purpose of a Ph.D. is to become a pre-eminent expert in a field. It's not to get a piece of paper. If you're not working on a career that will make you an expert, you'll be disappointed with your options after you have achieved your doctorate.

2\. Find the interesting problems that people are afraid to work on and work on them very hard.

3\. Use lots of techniques and approach your problems from many sides. Often something cool will shake out of the mix, and it won't have been in your research proposal.

4\. If you aren't self-motivated, it's not right for you. If you don't enjoy the work, take your masters and go do something you enjoy.

5\. Prepare your life for long hours and low pay with lots of frustration. Research doesn't proceed easily from point to point and it's all about being around when you accidentally make a breakthrough.

I'm sure I'm about 90% wrong, but perhaps less wrong than the naive, "Ph.D. is a way to stay in school and not have to face the real world" point of view.

<comment><USER13> My vision:

A rabbit is writing into a forest.

A fox see him:

Fox: "What are you writing?"

Rabbit: "How rabbit eat Foxes"

Fox: "It is completely wrong! You deserve I eat you now!"

Rabbit: "Please, just go see my supervisor before. He's in this cave."

The Fox enter into the cave and never go out. The rabbit continue to write.

The same occurs with a wolf. And a bit latter with a bear. Except the bear cannot enter into the cave. Then a Lion go out and kill the bear.

Conclusion. No matter if you are good or not. No matter the subject of your thesis. Only matter who's your supervisor.

<comment><USER14> A nice parable, though bears would destroy lions in combat if they met. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm going to have to disagree with the article for many reasons: First, I'm a Ph.D student and thus obviously biased. But second, while Ph.Ds can be unwise life decisions for many, it really depends on your field, and the most relevant field to this demographic is computer science. It really doesn't work that way in CS because such a high volume of computer scientists leave academia post-Ph.D into industry. CS industry (and the finance industry) has an insatiable thirst for deeply knowledgeable qualified Ph.Ds. I don't know what the cost benefit is (of spending 4 years in academia vs getting paid high industry salaries) and I'm sure you could make more money going straight into a tech job; but I'm going to assume here that we are maximizing more than just $\sum_{life} income$ here.

PG has a Ph.D; he did fine (yay anecdote). In my various internships around tech companies, there were plenty of senior coders who had Ph.Ds. And if you have a Ph.D in a relevant niche, you're probably going to be headhunted and well sought after. Where else does Wall Street or Google hire top machine learning specialists?

Now a Ph.D in sociology on the other hand... where do you go from there?

<comment><USER3> Sociology Ph.D.? The better sociology programs try hard to be mathematical, in particular, good with non-parametic statistics, all of multivariate statistics, and log-linear.

Also actually doing science in sociology is tough because have to be so careful about problem formulation, controls, spurious correlations, sampling, measures (reliability and validity).

So, for any solid quantitative work on marketing, ad targeting, public relations, public opinion polling, social program design and evaluation, organizational design and evaluation (i.e., high end HR) a good sociology background is about the best.

As I recall, P&G knows this, but I don't know how many others know it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I am a researcher who's fortunate enough to have found a permanent position at a place that I love doing work that I enjoy. I've served on program committees of conferences, organized workshops, etc. However, I must admit that some of the OPs thoughts are correct.

There is definitely a problem with an oversupply of PhDs relative to the job market for physics (and likely biology). For a position at say Berkeley for a biology faculty position there used to be approx. 600 applicants per position. For physics at first tier or second tier institutions the number may drop to 200. Even if we are cruel and suggest that half of those are unqualified, that still leaves a large pool of extraordinarily qualified people competing for a rather small pool of jobs. I see this regularly when there are young postdocs with good publication records (Nature, PRL, etc.) who are having trouble finding permanent positions after their postdocs. Part of this may be related to decreased state funding and hiring freezes (in several states, there have been furloughs). Even for postdocs who have decided that they would prefer to work at an undergraduate institution and teach, the competition is fierce. Oddly, even for those that want to teach at a public high school, it's hard because of the education requirements (you can run a facility, teach freshmen at an elite college--but teaching high school seniors....). Things are so fierce that it's rather hard to have much selectivity about geography. This can wreak havoc with relationships and in physics is known as the two body problem--where a couple in science has difficulty finding positions in the same zipcode. As one colleague told me, she'd be happy to just have the same timezone....

For my subfield, industrial research positions have been gradually drying up (at least for doing physics rather than engineering). A number of companies in the past were able to use monopoly profits to drive research (think of AT&T Bell Labs which is now but a shadow of it's former self--when I was there as an intern, it was amazing....). However, many have scaled back. Thus, I have seen a number of people pursuing various exit strategies.

During the internet boom (where I had decided to drop computer engineering as a major because physics was more fun), a number of people who could code dropped out an joined startups. Later, people from Ivy institutions joined consulting firms such as McKinsey (with a "mini-MBA"). Later, a number joined in the gold rush of financial engineering. While that continues, many go through a brief masters first to get their foot in the door. A few turn to more engineering related work. So, while the unemployment rate for physics PhDs is low--not so many are actually still doing physics research.

For myself, I'll take on undergraduate and high school interns. No graduate students. I really respect String Theorists who for years intentionally limited the number of students they would accept due to the paucity of permanent positions. For years, I'd been reluctant to take on a postdoc due to the current situation. Now, I've taken on my first postdoc and will do my best by him--but I have to be honest about the job market and I'm having him learn some programming as a plan B. Plan C is that I'm very confident that he'll be able to get a position in his home country afterwards.

I've seen some people who are bitter (think of the opportunity costs!) when they leave. But, I've seen some who are mellow--"At least I got to work with something beautiful for awhile....".Part of the difficulty is that for scientists, you don't go into it for the money (at least I hope you don't!), you go into it for love. So, doing science becomes not just a job, but rather a calling and a way of life. So, someone's sense of self may often become tied to being a scientist--and that's hard to leave behind...

So to summarize, while all fields of science are not cutthroat, given the level of competition, it is very hard to find a job. Also, given the level, then people have to work extremely hard and it takes a toll on people's personal lives (it's hard to have one when average work weeks extend to 60-80 hrs for a number of experimentalists--my solution has been to sleep less, but I'm told that's unhealthy...).

</comment><comment><USER16> I've observed that success in an academic environment requires more than simply scientific acumen. It also requires relentless self-promotion, networking and a passion not only for science, but for winning the academic game.

There are a lot of good science minded people, and there are a lot of good, driven self-promoters. Most successful scientists you encounter (apart from the odd genius) belong in the intersection between groups.

<comment><USER17> Well, some amount of self-promotion is necessary for success almost anywhere.

Sure, if you come up with something miraculous, then it markets itself. But otherwise you have to make sure that the right group of people knows about it or your idea will just fade away.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I keep getting 503 on the site. Here's a coral cache: [http://blog.devicerandom.org.nyud.net/2011/02/18/getting- a-l...](http://blog.devicerandom.org.nyud.net/2011/02/18/getting-a-life/)

</comment><comment><USER19> It is a matter of finding balance: finding the right advisor, keeping some time for your other life (your girlfriend, your friends) even if you will have deadline rushes and think about your problem under the shower. This is a common problem to all passionate people more than only "scientists". It just seems that you find a lot of passionate scientist in academia.

This writing seems about right (except that I didn't experience that much bad collaboration/competition though, even if I know it exists) to me, a second year Ph.D student in AI applied to RTS games. I don't really like that you have to work 24/7 to not be left behind, and I don't work that much indeed. Life is too short to have yours dictated by the actions of others. If you want to stop at 50hours/week while doing research, just try and make it so (focus your topic and focus on your advantages). But I'm happy pursuing a Ph.D. I don't have a fixed mindset/idea of what I would like to do next though: a startup? Working at a big firm? Seeking tenure? All options will be considered, but right now: I enjoy being paid (not much, particularly compared to my Masters prom comrades) to work on interesting topics and sometimes teach guys at the University about one of my passions (CS), with a great advisor (I picked him socially great and scientifically sharp, the mid-low h-index and the beard are byproducts), and so much intelligent people all around.

<comment><USER20> > This is a common problem to all passionate people more than only > "scientists". It just seems that you find a lot of passionate scientist in > academia.

The reason you find a lot of passionate people in academia, I think, has a large part to do with the PhD process. The monetary compensation isn't great for highly skilled labor, so the only way you'll be able to get through 5+ years of it is if you think it's the most fun thing you can be doing (or at least you think that for some large-ish fraction of the process).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Just to put it in perspective, I'm sure it's a real curse to have to spend the rest of your life doing something you purportedly absolutely love to do in a hell-hole like Pisa, Italy. That said, my heart absolutely goes out to this person who is apparently really depressed. Hope he can find his happiness in life.

<comment><USER22> According to someone I know who got a job there, Pisa is a very boring town. Some scenery plus a few tourist traps, low standard of living compared to the US [1], very little to do. Sounds fun before you go, much less fun after you've been there a few months.

[1] For hard numbers, I found this site, suggesting a professor in Italy has a real income about 2/3 that of a US professor: <http://www.worldsalaries.org/professor.shtml>

<comment><USER23> Pisa is a nice (but tiny) town, which will be boring if you are young and are use to the big city life. That being said I don't agree that the standard of living is low compared to the US; the standard of living really depends on what you look for. For me the salary is a poor indicator of quality of life. I'd rather earn less and have more holidays, live in a place with great food, art & culture, slower rhythm of life, less pollution, health care, and nice landscapes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _There is a second option, which is bare survival._

What about the third option: get your PhD and work in industry? I keep coming across statistics and CS PhDs who now work for Twitter, the New York Times, and industry research labs (AT&T, Microsoft). Why isn't an industry job a viable option?

<comment><USER25> _"I keep coming across statistics and CS PhDs who now work for Twitter, the New York Times, and industry research labs (AT &T, Microsoft). Why isn't an industry job a viable option?"_

Because (speaking as one of those people), a PhD is total overkill for nearly all industry jobs, and it costs a lot more to get one. It also probably works against you in most parts of the tech industry, where there's a surprising amount of blind opposition to anyone with a doctorate.

Finally, remember people with PhDs who work in industry have made a difficult, conscious decision to abandon the academic life. It's _not_ the expected outcome, and there's an intense cultural pressure not to leave the ivory tower.

<comment><USER26> _"It also probably works against you in most parts of the tech industry, where there's a surprising amount of blind opposition to anyone with a doctorate."_

I didn't encounter any doctorate-opposition per se. I think it's more opportunity cost issue.

Tech industry is quite meritocratic. Problem for many people with PhDs is that this is the only thing they can show after many years spent hidden in academia, working on esoteric things.

If you keep up your real world skills during graduate school, I believe nobody is going to hold your degree against you.

At least that was my experience (and experience of my classmates from graduate school).

We did a lot of nitty-gritty software engineering during graduate school (ideas from our papers had to be implemented and integrated into bigger projects, that's how funding pipeline worked).

Also it helps not to act smug about your degree - industry is full of very smart people who didn't even go to university.

<comment><USER25> Let's be clear: I'm not complaining, nor am I talking about _personal_ experiences of discrimination -- I don't know if my resume has ever been circular-filed because of my degree. But since I left academia I have been surprised by the number of people who have _explicitly_ told me that they consider a PhD to be a black mark on a resume. I think a lot of people have had one or two bad experiences interviewing/hiring PhDs, and they associate the degree with the incompetence because it's so rare to interview someone with a doctorate.

For what it's worth, I don't find the tech industry to be more or less meritocratic than any other -- we certainly like to _pretend_ that our hiring methods are hyper-objective, but I've seen lots of hiring decisions that just boil down to opinion and intuition. Non-meritocratic things like pedigree and 'who you know' matter a lot, even amongst engineers.

<comment><USER26> I meant no offense.

Fully agree with what you said - there is a lot of sampling bias because of relative rarity of PhDs (few bad apples can completely color expectations).

It was quite a surprise for me when doing a summer program at major US corporation and everybody was going gaga because our group had many PhDs.

In academia, everybody has doctorate, so degree in itself doesn't really confer any additional signal.

In industry, people take it as a signal even when it is not (person matters more than degree, the same person would be hireable / not-hireable whether having or not having degree).

But anyways, you wouldn't want to work at places / for people which can't / don't take such things into account.

That's why I mentioned meritocracy - it's nicer to work at places where it matters only if you can get the job done, not your degree / pedigree / who- you-know.

But yeah, human nature, hard to fight against, we all like signaling (it's useful heuristics after all).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> WELCOME TO LIFE. I've worked in academia, industry and finance. It's all a pyramid. Play the game or you'll be passed over.

<comment><USER28> Exactly. Those of you who think the world is fair or based on merit need to read "Power: Why Some People Have It - And Others Don't" by Jeffrey Pfeffer.

The world isn't fair. This is true whether you're in academia or industry, and accepting this fact isn't a bad thing, nor does it mean you've given in to the dark side. As retube points out, if you don't play the game you're conceding before you even start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> While I sympathize with the author, I don't think we can generalize from his experience all that much. For a balancing anecdote, here's my life progression to date:

      Bachelors: 22
      Start PhD: 24
      Meet girl: 25
      Get engaged: 27
      Submit thesis: 27
      s/girlfriend/wife/: 28
      Get 6 figure salary working for Mozilla: 28
      Am now: 29

Yes, everything turned out better than expected (though I omitted the bit where I started and folded a company in there), and it could have gone horribly wrong. But you just can't generalize about doing a PhD, or anything really, from his anecdote, or from mine.

</comment><comment><USER30> When I graduated with my degree in physics, I was introduced to something called Ruby on Rails, and instead of go on to grad school I pivoted into the life of a web developer. Best thing that ever happened to me.

<comment><USER31> I did go to physics grad school, but eventually I came around. :-) <http://railstutorial.org/book#author>

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> So, I often have to justify the time I spent getting a PhD in computer science (Cryptography), because I have a start-up that programs Facebook Apps now a days.

The only reason I can, is because I really didn't spend that much time actually working during the whole period and spent a lot of time learning to surf and play tennis well.

I really feel like I learned a lot of valuable lessons from learning to play tennis and to surf. I'm really glad my PhD afforded me time and money to make that possible.

</comment><comment><USER33> I had a similar painful revelation, as do 95% of people who get science PhD's. Fortunately it happened when I was a postdoc, so at least I got my honorable discharge.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here's a link to that article on The Economist that states there are too many people doing too much of _everything_ and life is hard in general. Oh wait, that doesn't exist yet perhaps because that's reality. It sounds like he has spent so much time doing everything but what he _should_ be doing which is looking for something he actually _enjoys_ doing. Not that the article wasn't insightful or lucid or anything but this article struck me in he clearly enjoys complaining about his work life than doing it so there's a problem. I don't love my job but I enjoy doing it most of the time and I have great hobbies, a great partner in life and am happier and fitter than I have ever been. Perhaps he should try doing different things and see how that works out as when you are doing something you don't have any expectations. Why would you say "I love science, I just don't love doing it?". I love Formula One cars but don't know anything about driving them but I love riding motorcycles, and riding bikes. He needs to find the action verb that defines his work life and not impose any expectations from a noun he associates with "love."

</comment><comment><USER35> Isn't the real problem here that we rely on "academia" to be the "experts"? I know a number of very accomplished and intelligent folks that did not pursue PhD and have done phenomenally well in their own research. But sadly many, for credibility's sake, had to advertise themselves as think tanks. Why can't we just put the damn degrees down and listen to the person to judge their competency??

<comment><USER36> Self taught mathematicians used to be very common (100 years ago).

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Thankfully this guy figured it out when he was only 30. He's still got lots of time to figure out new ways to use and market the skills he has acquired.

New thought: academia isn't broken, there are just too many people who want to be academics. What do people think?

<comment><USER24> _New thought: academia isn't broken, there are just too many people who want to be academics. What do people think?_

Not too much of a new thought, the recent Economist article [0] on academic made a similar assertion.

[0] <http://www.economist.com/node/17723223?story_id=17723223>

<comment><USER31> Indeed, the OP cites the very same article.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is a good outline of a problem, with absolutely no insights into any possible solutions. As far as I'm concerned this is a half finished post. It's not enough to simply complain/outline the problem. You have to use that personal experience to offer up some kind of personal redemption or possible global solution to really keep the conversation moving.

<comment> mkr-hn You don't have to find solutions to point out a problem. He might be so fried by the experience that he doesn't have the presence of mind to come up with solutions.

It seems like the goal might have been to put academia on notice so _it_ could determine whether or not it cares about the problem enough to solve it.</comment></comment>