People Are Worried About Bond Market Liquidity - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-03/people-are-worried-about-bond-market-liquidity <comment><USER3> People _should_ be worried about bond liquidity.

In a normal interest rate environment, bonds are income producing instruments and if you don't need to sell and are ok with the interest rate, liquidity doesn't matter quite so much. However with near-zero rates for the last 5-6 years, bonds are only making money as long as there is actual deflation (which however increases default risk) or if yields keep dropping (which beyond zero becomes some weird sort of Einstein-Bose finance where people pay others for the privilege of lending them money). In this type of environment you can't just hold the bond to maturity and live off of the income... to cash out you must sell, so liquidity is critically important.

The "flash crash" rhetoric in the article is a red herring. Much more troubling would be an actual fundamental shift in the market... the bonds markets are so huge that even small moves could prove to be seismic...

I've always thought that preventing this was the true purpose of QE, and is the reason that the Fed quadrupled its balance sheet with little effect on the headline CPI or other mainstream measures of inflation... however it might not be a stretch to say that the hyperinflation that all the doomers were predicting is playing out in the bond markets. If that is the case, and the liquidity dries up because QE is over and everyone who was frontrunning the Fed decides to cash out... yikes

<comment><USER4> Liquidity has to flow somwhere and in the instant case its likely to treasuries if other bond classes crash. As destabilizing as that would be for holders of the distressed bonds, and for borrowers who need to raise capital, its arguably very stabilizing for treasuries and offers the Fed its long-term exit from unprecedented balance sheet inflation. Treasury holders will be paying the cost for the Fed to retire debt as I see it.

<comment><USER3> I agree I think that dynamic could definitely play out... I'm less sanguine about how orderly such a shift would be in practice however, and the level of complexity in financial markets today I am skeptical that destabilization would be limited to holders of distressed bonds (even if it was, those bondholders are probably major institutions whose problems could lead to more bailouts, derivatives being triggered, etc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've long thought there _should_ be an efficient-markets solution to flash crashes. If the majority of sudden price drops are flash crashes and not fundamentals trading, then someone ought to be able to print money by simply resting a big bid 19% (or however low you can go without tripping the circuit breaker) below the current price, for everything, every day, and cashing in when the price crashes and rebounds. That would smooth out the crashes without any need for external intervention.

So why is no-one doing this?

<comment><USER6> _> , and cashing in _when_ the price crashes and rebounds._

[my emphasis on " _when_ "]

I think the "when" is a huge part of the puzzle. How can an algorithm _know_ the difference between a flash crash that will get remedied within 24 hours vs a longer period of irrational pricing that takes months to sort out?

For example, at the time of the famous LTCM downfall[1], it held several arbitrage positions that were _eventually_ proven right... but they didn't have sufficient capital reserves to survive the short term irrational spreads (Russian default, flight to US Treasuries, etc). I'm not saying that LTCM didn't have many other flaws of risk analysis that would have also caused their downfall but in that one case, it was an illustration of " _the markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent._ "

[1][http://www.amazon.com/When-Genius-Failed-Long-Term- Managemen...](http://www.amazon.com/When-Genius-Failed-Long-Term- Management/dp/0375758259)

<comment><USER7> GP is talking about a long-only flash-crash arb strategy -- so assuming you're not buying on margin you don't have the need to have capital reserves to "survive" until the recovery.

Of course, especially these days in the markets, whatever _can_ be leveraged, _will_ be leveraged...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The central banks are printing money like crazy driving down interest rates below the historical average of 5.5% interest rate. This jacks up stocks prices and pushes up a new tech bubble. Who knows where we will end up another pets.com maybe?

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

<comment><USER9> Sarbox rules have made it very difficult to list a company.

No more pets.com because no more floats.

When was the last time you heard about a small operation with little revenue, no profits and not much of a business model getting floated ?

These days it just doesn't happen much. The floats are all giants like Facebook. Back in the late 90s these things were listing monthly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't think there's a real problem here, except for forced sellers - I would pity an investor who is forced to liquidate a corporate bond portfolio because of a margin call. But liquidity risk (especially in the corporate bond market) isn't exactly news to anybody.

Liquidity for US Treasuries may well be lower because the Fed's taken so many of them onto its balance sheet[1] but I don't think that a lack of liquidity is going to pose a real problem in that market. There's a difference between a market that's dislocated (by which I mean that the market price has deviated from the "real" value of the asset) due to a structural problem (like a lack of liquidity), and a market that has reached its peak (and/or is overvalued, and is undergoing a correction - which may be happening in Europe at the moment[2]).

People get all excited about flash crashes and talk about billions of dollars being wiped off the value of whatever but it's complete horseshit. Just because a few trades happen at an unreasonable price because of a technical hiccup (or because of some strange, unforeseen interaction between different automated systems) doesn't mean that the underlying value of the asset in question has changed. If a share starts the day at $100, dips to $1 because of a flash crash, then recovers to $100, what has really changed? A few people may have made/lost money by being lucky/unlucky enough to have traded at an incorrect price (e.g. because a stop-loss got triggered or something) but other than the appearance of an icicle-shaped spike on a chart, it's just noise (and if you have a system which reacts to noise, then the problem lies with your system, not the market).

Personally, I think the bond market has been propped up by "quantitative easing", which has, in turn, inflated the equity markets. At some point, that situation has to undergo a correction and that could well manifest itself as a crash if everyone dashes for the exit at the same time. But that's the nature of markets - they fluctuate, sometimes wildly.

1: [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TREAST)

2: [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3722d4a0-0a63-11e5-82e4-00144feabd...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3722d4a0-0a63-11e5-82e4-00144feabdc0.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> That is the least of things to worry about.

Talk to any face to face financial advisor and they will tell you to buy bonds not bond funds. (You never hear this in the financial press, funny...). The issue is that bond funds don't behave much at all like bonds do because they are always trading to keep the maturity distribution constant. This in turn throws off the logic behind the idea that at age X you should have Y percent of bonds and Z percent of stocks.

If you are doing the "put $50 a week in your IRA" thing, you can't even buy bonds because the denominations are way too large period, but it is even worse if you want diversity.

I'd love to see some kind of ETF with an expiration date that would behave like a bond, give diversity against default risk and be denominated to be a tool for the ordinary investor.

Trouble is it is hard to get anybody excited about bonds today and if interest rates ever go up, bond funds will be a bloodbath -- PIMCO will lose more money for investors than anyone in history, not because they did anything wrong but just because that is how the cookie crumbles.

With that backdrop it might be 25 years before people will buy a new debt product.

<comment><USER12> This is not correct. What you're referring to is holding a bond to maturity versus holding a bond fund. If rates were to rise, both would be (relatively) equally affected. The difference would be that the price of the bond would revert to the face value of the bond as it got closer to maturity.

Obviously the downside of this is that you are basically keeping your principal value at the end of the day, but you're forced to hold a bond that's giving you a below market return until it matures. For most people, this makes absolutely no sense.

On top of that, you can buy and sell a mutual fund based on the asset value of the fund at any time, while the bond market is opaque and you often get pricing that is very far off the average unless you are a large institutional buyer/seller. There are massive economies of scale in bonds that you don't see in the stock market.

If you are trying to invest millions of dollars, buying individual bonds might make more sense, but at that point you're going to want someone to help you determine the difference between individual bonds and the covenants that one bond has over another, but even then you still run the risk of getting bad pricing on buying those bonds.

<comment><USER13> But don't we have extremely straight forward math that can convert bonds into equivalent terms? If I'm 3 years into my 10 year bond, and the rate changes the choice isn't hold - not hold, since I'm effectively making the same bet as if I had the net present value of the partially paid out 10 year bond and I was evaluating 7 year bonds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Another Bloomberg report that sums up the fears spreading through the "bond market":

Bond Rout Wipes Out 2015 Gains as Traders Stay Glued to Screens

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-03/bond- rout-...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-03/bond-rout-wipes- out-15-gains-as-traders-fret-even-leaving-desks)

Bill Gross of Janus called German Bunds the "short of the century" and it looks as if US and JPY are equally vulnerable. $TLT down 15% since Jan and I believe it still has room to run on the downside.

Now, interestingly, just this week Gross cited another "short of the century", calling for a top on Chinese Internet Stocks in the near term. But with another 25 IPOs coming down the pipeline this one will face a lot of headwinds. Man, I _heart_ summer volatility...

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-03/gross-s- ne...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-03/gross-s-next-short- is-china-s-stock-index-but-not-yet)

</comment><comment><USER15> A crash in bond prices means an increase in yields.

The article doesn't mention, and acknowledges this, whether treasuries or corporate bonds are worrying people. If the former it could be back to 'normal interest rates' (or at least ones that reflect and account for economic growth), if the latter then another recession, but I think this call is 3 years too early.

The article talks about CDOs and CDSs - the book 'The Big Short' by Michael Lewis is a good read about CDOs and CDSs in the run-up to the 2007/2008 crash.

<comment><USER16> Both treasury and corporate bond liquidity are worrisome. At least from the credit perspective, banks were previously able to step in when shit hit the fan and smooth out market volatility. Between prop desks being dismantled and increased capital charges, banks are simply no longer warehousing risk. There's been constant sell-side pieces and more recently a lot of regulatory or government cautions on the topic.

<comment><USER17> If interest rates begin to rise, this can really be a serious problem. If people start liquidating their bond mutual funds and etf's and there is no liquidity in the underlying bonds, there will be a large dislocation.

But isn't all this rhetoric and fear mongering just here to promote a continuation of the zero interest rate policy? Japan's been there for 20 years and we're only at year 8...we've got to maintain zirp forever now. The list of terrible things that will happen in a rising rates environment is quite long.

<comment><USER15> The risk of zero rates is greater. Low long term interest rates are bad, as they represent low (or zero) growth. A sell off in bonds, especially low-risk bonds such as treasuries, is a move into interest-seeking assets, which is an appetite for risk. This is a good thing.

The economy is a balance sheet, however simplified or complexified it may be made. A low return on capital represents a low growth of capital. In some economies with less transparent capital markets, the link to official interest rates and actual growth is difficult at best, but in more developed capital markets the cost of capital is well proxied by the interest rate. And if the interest rate is low, the return on capital (at a macro level, totaling and summasing the micro level anecdote - micro level opinions go both ways) is low, and if that is low, then growth is low.

Extra: Bond price falls indicate a move into risk. This is especially good for people affected by stock price falls coupled with low interest rates - <USER2> for example, approaching retirement age with money in growth. Interest rates (higher) make buying annuities a lot more attractive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The people who worry about liquidity are always the people who bought on margin or otherwise used short-term debt to finance acquisition of long-term assets. If I were doing that, I'd be worried too, but it wouldn't matter whether the overpriced bubbly assets I bought were bonds, equities, artwork, or tulips.

</comment><comment><USER19> Isn't the whole point of bonds that they're _not_ highly liquid?

<comment><USER20> It turns out: No. You're thinking about it from only one side of the table.

For example: Gov'ts issue bonds on a regular basis to finance their debts. They depend on that market being there in order to continue normal operations. If liquidity evaporates, then many participants will not partake in the auctions, which is A Big Problem. Likely a central bank (a "lender of last resort") will step in for that case, but that only emphasizes that there are big market problems to the participants.

<comment><USER4> Opposite. Funds will flow to treasury auctions for two reasons. First, liquidity has to flow and will to the safest destiation; and second, account surplus countries (eg. China) have to recycle dollars to maintain their surplus and will have no options apart from treasuries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seems like the value investors might not be there to take the other side because they don't see value. If the price moves enough, they'll appear.</comment>


Beware the data science pin factory: The power of the data science generalist - <AUTHOR> https://multithreaded.stitchfix.com/blog/2019/03/11/FullStackDS-Generalists/ <comment><USER2> I really wish hiring managers read this. I am a data generalist, and have had no traction with obtaining even an interview for a data science job. I've setup a private JupyterHub where I run python ETL, interactive models, and dashboards. I deployed Metabase several times and have written hundreds of SQL queries. I've used Tableau with gigantic datasets. I built a front end serverless analytics pipeline from scratch with AWS that handles 30M events/mo. I've demonstrably grown revenue and margins in multiple contexts with my data products. I'm working on making a fully dynamic frontend for content recommendations. I have self-taught all of these skills in the past 3 years after a decade in sales, marketing, and entrepreneurship. What I haven't done: a CS/math degree (mine was music), graduate work, or tech work at a household name. Lived in the Bay Area. Gotten an interview for any data job. Sigh.

<comment><USER3> Have you tried paid services/consulting arms of software or cloud companies? Teams that bill customers at an hourly rate? They generally look for generalists who can help customers tackle problems at different levels of the stack. They aren't looking for PhDs in statistics.

When I interview people who have your type of background, I tend to get confused by what exactly it is the person wants to do (Analyze Data? Build an Analytics Pipeline/Architecture? Write Software/Services? Be an Analytics IT person?). Sometimes they have to talk about all the "cool" stuff they've done and lose focus on what they bring to the role. I also become skeptical because it's really easy nowadays to follow a few tutorials on 50 different things and then boast about how you did it all yourself.

Even reading your comment, you don't sound like somebody who wants to analyze data.

As far as being a generalist, I definitely agree that it's good to have somebody with skills in ETL, analyzing data, and _maybe_ building a software service. But what happens is that all those things happen at different speeds and then people get crushed. You're asked to investigate some data quickly over 3 days, but suddenly the software service you built is having issues and you need 2 weeks to dig in and fix it, and also your ETL job is overloading the server you need to fix it yesterday but you need help from a somebody else to figure it out. Oh, and that Metabase thing you installed is broken and the VP was using it and has a big demo tomorrow.

<comment><USER4> > I tend to get confused by what exactly it is the person wants to do (Analyze > Data? Build an Analytics Pipeline/Architecture? Write Software/Services?

But this is the crux of the job-seeker's dilemma. If he/she is specific about their interests when speaking to an interviewer, they might get a response like "well, we're really looking for someone whose operational focus is [something else]".

And if they're not super-specific (I doubt anyone does data analysis exclusively without any other involvement in the project), but instead attempt to give examples where they had demonstrable impact working across a number of domains, you might hear a response like this:

> Even reading your comment, you don't sound like somebody who wants to > analyze data.

<comment><USER3> I don't think a person has to be super specific or say "I am interested in X and Y." What they do need is consistency in a resume so the reviewer/interviewer can evaluate what their primary and secondary focus areas are. Sometimes you have to leave stuff out. For example, Data Scientists typically don't deploy and maintain a Data Science stack unless it's a really small company. And a Data Science Infrastructure person at a bigger company probably isn't analyzing data unless they are just playing around to validate their stack.

But if you have a resume (or say this during an interview) that gives equal weight to the data analysis and the stack deployment, it's just confusing to the person reading it. Especially in Data Science, which already confusing from a skillset perspective. Lots of resumes look like the applicants just thought 10 things with minimal overlap were cool and decided to put them on their resume.

Even if you did work at a 5 person startup and had the unoffical title of "Data Scientist, Data Engineer, Data DevOps, DB Admin, and Chief Data Officer" I'd recommend you downplay some of those based on the jobs you are applying for. Figure out what is essential and what is +1

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not sure this is entirely true. The author is arguing for full stack scientists, and I prefer those people, but they're hard to find, and even then you don't necessarily want them doing everything. Worse yet, if you put someone in a full stack position, and they're not already full stack, you need to budget a lot of mentoring, because if you don't, you're going to get a big pile of unmaintainable code.

The author kind of builds a strawman of super specialized data scientists that constantly throw code over the wall to someone else. That doesn't work, and you simply can't do that unless your headcount is in the thousands. You have to have people that can productionize their work. At the same time, he's arguing that scientists should should be maintaining their own data infrastructure, but that's not good either.

The best advice I was given was to hire people either to make you smarter, or to make you stronger/faster. You hire data scientists and ML experts to make you smarter. They should be working on problems that you can't solve today. Infrastructure on the other hand, isn't your product. It's overhead. It's a tool. Comparatively, it's easier to hire people to build and maintain your infrastructure. Hire people to do that. All the time your scientists are dealing with infrastructure, is time they could be doing useful work.

All that said, know when you should just shove the infrapeople aside and do it yourself.

<comment><USER6> Infrastructure isn't your product. Why build an infrastructure instead of buying it?

<comment><USER7> Not OP, but given the context, it seems OP is using infrastructure to mean "all prerequisites to doing ML/data analysis work."

Some of that (e.g. datawarehousing, etc.) is easier to outsource; other parts (data acquisition from your product, ETL design, etc.) are necessarily bespoke to your company an thus not readily "buyable." I understand OP to be arguing roughly "you can get a good DBA for much cheaper than you can get a good ML Engineer (much less a good ML Engineer who's ALSO a good DBA), so there's no sense in making Database management part of the Data Scientist role."

<comment><USER5> You have correctly understood what I am saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A very good article, but I think that there is a missing concept - which is organisational maturity. In a fully mature data driven organisation (like... errm Google I guess - reading Jeff Deans papers anyway) there is a well developed data fabric, polished processes for providing credentials and authority, right sized resourcing pools and also substantial diversity of specialisation coupled with experience and domain insight. Specialists can flourish and deliver value out of proportion to their costs. In other, less developed, organisations there's no chance this will happen and specialists will be left floundering looking for the setting in which they can do their thang.

<comment><USER9> > A very good article, but I think that there is a missing concept - which is > organisational maturity.

Maturity and also scale - I suppose a small or even one-man shop requiring a generalist could be mature. Once you get to a certain size specialization happens automatically.

<comment><USER8> I agree that a one man shop can be "mature"; but there are many very large scale operations that have cultures that absolutely preclude speciality.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Article's sentiments are also true for Business Intelligence. The most effective (I deliberately used work effective) BI developers have the following qualities interested in the business, able to chat to clients (emotional intelligence) and also able to code. The best BI people end up being generalists. Talkative nerds who can converse with business types and from the business end, you get the business people who are genuinely curious and willing to learn some SQL.

Being able to communicate is key in BI because this enables you to focus on the right business problems.

</comment><comment><USER11> I agree and disagree with this post. I do think data scientists need to be better at data processing and do more of it. But I still think you do need a separation of labor between people setting up pipelines and people building models from the data. The real issue is that there are a lot of data science departments where they wittle away at their models in some notebook and then they're "done" once the notebook is showing the right metrics. Data scientists should be writing their models from the beginning so that they can productionize them once they are finished. There shouldn't be frequent hand off events requiring lots of communication between DS, pipelines, and data engineering teams, there should be an integration process set up so the flow of work continues to function without intervention.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interestingly, the article doesn't talk about the _scale of production_ and its effects on _productivity_. When you produce _lots of pins_ , division of labor is a known way to increase productivity.

A data science generalist may work fine for a small data shop but as you grow and expand data science in your organization, we know the next step to increase productivity involves _specialization_ (AKA division of labor). It happens not just in data science, but in all business functions and with all business roles.

Marketing, Sales, Finance, Engineering, Operations - every business function uses specialization to get productivity gains. So while _generalists_ may work for you if you're a small business or a large business spinning up a new business function, specialization is a proven economic tool for productivity gains as you grow.

Interestingly, as a business function grows, the communication costs and the ensuing delays increase and this is a known side-effect of specialization within that business function. This doesn't mean one throws away specialization and runs to the other extreme of the spectrum with their use of _generalists_. There's a tradeoff organizations make here and there's been a lot of experimentation done in this space like - _Amazon 's two-pizza teams_ ([https://zurb.com/word/two-pizza-team](https://zurb.com/word/two-pizza- team)), _Spotify's Squads_ , etc - these organizational structures are not universally applicable but they're interesting developments to look at.

 _Shameless Plug_ (on current state of data science market) - [https://medium.com/open-factory/state-of-the-m-art-big- data-...](https://medium.com/open-factory/state-of-the-m-art-big-data- analytics-2396c321d7b9)

</comment><comment><USER13> I generally agree with this article, and I am, and continue to aspire to be, a strong generalist data scientist. However, I do still enjoy/need to have 1 or 2 really really strong quants/statistician types on my team, since they are able to solve certain problems at a level of depth I can't reach. However, if they aren't supported by generalists, they also struggle to make impact.

<comment><USER14> Yes, indeed, the main issue TFA missed out on is comparative advantage.

Theoretically speaking...it's much more efficient to have the specialists doing what they do best instead of trying to learn how to optimize SQL queries or whatever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This sounds suspiciously like the battle software developers have been waging with people who want to run software development in a manufacturing model. The battle itself really sucks the love of making something right out of you.

</comment><comment><USER16> The author points this out at the end but I want to highlight it. Adam Smith also said that division of labor makes a person "as stupid and ignorant" as a person can become. [https://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html](https://www.pitt.edu/~syd/ASIND.html)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm Financial Analyst, CPA, CIA, CTA, Statistician, Expert System Developer.

I independently developed a financial analysis expert system, with a strong ability to innovate and execute.

All my expertise is entirely self-taught.

My Project: [https://github.com/linpengcheng/fa](https://github.com/linpengcheng/fa)

My technology Blog: [https://github.com/linpengcheng/PurefunctionPipelineDataflow](https://github.com/linpengcheng/PurefunctionPipelineDataflow)

<comment><USER17> @pirocks, Don't you think this is a case of data science generalist creating good products? What kind of psychology makes you give a downvote? Why delete your comments again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Wow, this is a cool "interactive whitepaper" website :)

[https://algorithms-tour.stitchfix.com/](https://algorithms- tour.stitchfix.com/)

</comment><comment><USER19> This works in environments where infrastructure can support it. It can be downright blissful!

</comment><comment><USER20> This article is terrible. You can't make a case by putting a bunch of unsupported assertions into section-heading fonts and then just filling in paragraphs.

This reads like a desperate business person wrote it, who wishes that one full-stack set of drives made sense and coexisted in a single person to make that labor cheaper and more commidity, despite the reality that it's simply not true.

The person who spent the time to master web service frameworks, query languages and product engineering _necessarily_ did not also master professional level knowledge of deep learning or MCMC sampling or natural language processing.

The two types of people need to coexist and work symbiotically, but it's just asinine wishful thinking to pretend like they are the same person, let alone to write a baseless essay full of assertions that if they aren't the same person it somehow results in first principles economic inefficiency.

<comment><USER21> You'll have to do better than an _ad hominem_ \+ "the opposite is true." Author is Chief Algorithms Officer at Stitchfix and former VP Data Science & Engineering at Netflix.

<comment><USER20> No, sorry. Argument from authority doesn't mean the original article has a cogent point.

There's no burden on anyone to refute anything from this piece, as the piece itself has not met any basic requirement of presenting facts or evidence in the first place.

It's merely a matter of fact to point out this deficiency of the article. The premises of the article _could still be accurate_ (though I think that is fleetingly unlikely), but even if so, _this article_ does not justify any of those claims, so nobody could know one way or the other from _this article_. Again, this is just a matter of observation of the justifications given.

This author would personally find it more convenient if the skillset of data scientists and data platform engineers coexisted in one person who also happened to have the drive to undertake employment spanning all those skill sets, and wouldn't become unhappy if the employer did not respect specializations. So this author has decided to read tea leaves out of economic principles and superimpose this wish as if it was justified by some first principles analysis.

In fact, this wishful thinking seems exactly in line with the flawed perspective that executives or director level employees will have. They don't want to have to care about motivation and intellectual curiosity required to keep certain kinds of knowledge workers happy & productive, and spend lots of time trying to justify how their business units embody corporate platitudes about customer-driven passion. It's quite easy to see why they would fall victim to this sort of naive wishful thinking. It's quite similar to CTOs getting suckered by turn-key consulting solutions. It's not even surprising that VPs & C-suite executives would be very wrong about this type of work.

<comment><USER12> > _Author is Chief Algorithms Officer at Stitchfix and former VP Data Science > & Engineering at Netflix._

This is what I was referring to when I said _argument from authority_ :)

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) : _a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument_</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Too Many Cops Are Told They're Soldiers Fighting a War. How Did We Get Here? - <AUTHOR> http://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/too-many-cops-are-told-theyre-soldiers

<comment><USER2> Crime is at an all-time low yet spending on police is near an all-time high. (Those factors could have a causal relationship, but I doubt it's the primary cause based on reading "The Better Angels of Our Nature".) [http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010USp_12s1li011mcn_50t)

Having big budgets but less crime means these swollen budgets end up being wasted on a lot of "fun" things like military gear. (Did you know that Wisconsin has _two_ anti-terrorism centers? One in Madison and one in Milwaukee.)

I think this has something to do with politicians being unable to touch the budgets of first responders.

Tangentially, due to stringent building codes, the number and severity of fires has been dropping dramatically over time. Yet spending on fire protection only goes one way: up. [http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010...](http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1950_2010USp_12s1li011mcn_52t)

Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance and a cop. It makes me wonder if firemen and firewomen are so underutilized they've ended up with mostly make-work.

<comment><USER3> _" Today in the US, if you call 911 about an emergency medical condition, they will often send a fire engine along with an ambulance [...]"_

This is SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

1\. Imagine a scenario where an ambulance arrives as a first responder, and the EMTs [1] find that they cannot gain access to the emergency scene, because the home or other structure is locked or otherwise blocked. In this case, a firetruck would need to be dispatched, because it deploys with the correct equipment (e.g., Halligan bar [2], Denver tool [3], etc.) and personnel trained to handle such a situation. Also, ambulances are typically deployed with only two personnel, and that may not be enough in situations where items need to be moved or cleared to gain clear access to the emergency scene.

2\. Most firefighters are cross-trained as EMTs. If they are local to the emergency scene, then they may be the first responders, while an ambulance is en-route.

3\. Incoming 911 calls can often be confusing, with callers under extreme stress, experiencing situations that they have never faced in their lives. Imagine a situation where a caller is so distraught, overwhelmed, or focused on a life-saving effort, that they cannot articulate that they need firefighting support, in addition to an ambulance.

The bottom line: in an emergency situation, it is better to have more help on- hand than too little.

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

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

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

<comment><USER4> And yet I can imagine this is something that could be optimized; why not cross-train the three emergency respondent department members into jack-of- all-trades that can deal with 80% of cases? Or put members of the three departments into a single vehicle equipped to deal with most cases? They could travel swifly to the site and deal with most cases, and call in back-up (like a fully equipped ambulance, fire-truck, or paramilitary SWAT-team in an armored hum-vee) if the situation needs it. I'm not an expert, but that would reduce overhead and cross-department communication needs.

Of course, the risk is that if the one vehicle has an accident in itself, there's no others that can fall in right then.

<comment><USER5> Firemen and EMTS DON'T WANT to be cops! That's why "public safety" movements fail. They don't want to be forced to issue citations for petty drug laws while trying to save people from health or fire emergencies. It's not an uncommon situation for somebody with petty illegal activity to start shooting at firemen trying to stop their house being on fire because they think firemen might arrest them. Regular fireman just want to take care of safety.. They don't want to put on jackboots and arrest people.

Of course the Feds want as many police as possible because of the laws militarizing them and actually disincentive separete rate fire protection with rigged grant processes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not a flippant comment...... I blame Hollywood.

I honestly do.

They glamorize and hero worship mega violent law breaking cops, while at the same time portraying criminals as super beings with government like resources, who always lose due to the violent law breaking cops.

The people in the end believe this to be a vaguely true, even though in their lives they rarely see it, most cops are in fact fairly decent professionals, and criminals are average to dumb folk with bugger all resources, while the cops think they look crap compared to the Hollywood versions, and want more powers and toys.

No? Well, I'm yet to see a credible argument as to why adverts influence us, but movies don't. One of those special people who claim ads dont work on you? Simply, I don't believe you. Every one reckons that, yet ads work.

<comment><USER7> You are missing a news industry, who secretly want a Micheal Bay like special effects budget .

<comment><USER6> Very good point.

Yes, they do dress up news like an action movie. That most obvious and grating feature of this is the emotional music they now play over news and documentaries. Also, they way enemies are completely demonized and dehumanized, and the good guys worshiped. And when a lead character goes off script, they really freak out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> During the 2011 protests in Russia, some people suggested that the government benefits from bad relations between the public and the police, because the government is afraid that the police will side with the public during mass protests. Though I guess that problem is much less severe in the US.

<comment><USER9> Given how the situation is playing out in Egypt, I'd say this assessment is spot-on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> David Simon and Ed Burns wrote the following passage for the TV show, "The Wire" spoken by Bunny Colvin:

<<<< I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a fucking enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your fucking enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory. >>>>

This was written in 2004. With the passage of time, it seems more and more prescient.

<comment><USER11> It's not prescient because that is how it's been in predominantly black neighbourhoods. Black people have been saying this for the last 2-3 decades through protests, riots, and community organisers. It's only now that everyone has a cameraphone and a Youtube account do you get to see what's been going on.

Even well respected actor, Levar Burton, knows how to act in front of police. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M-ck...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=M-ckDJ3xTaE).

For black people we go into every encounter with the police thinking this might be my last moment on earth.

<comment><USER5> Being as its Levar...

His famous role was in Roots as the slave that kept getting lashed for not taking a proper English name from his owner over and over if he would just say his English name...

So its more than a little ironic that THIS actor makes a video about how to be properly submissive to his mas'ers!

It just sad that he would have to make a video like that because most of his TV time has been spent reading books to children. He's about as threatening as Mr. Rogers and still gets the jackboot.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> FYI Two days ago there was a very extensive discussion on a Salon article which was an excerpt of this book:

"Why did you shoot me? I was reading a book" (salon.com) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6001843)

<comment><USER13> Thanks, I didn't connect the dots here (I had read the Salon article.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> You can't make this shit up.

> Police in North Dakota borrowed a $154 million MQ-9 Predator B drone from > the Department of Homeland Security to arrest a family of anti-government > separatists who refused to return six cows that wandered onto their farm.

<comment><USER15> That's really misleading.

There is a base in Grand Forks, ND that houses several CBP (Customs and Border Patrol) Predator Drones, and they work with local law enforcement when asked to.

So, more than likely, the drone is going to be flying home here anyway, and made a pass over some property.

The facility where these things are flown from isn't some top secret bunker or anything, it's an office building on the air force base, and they give tours to local schools[1]. A local cop probably just stood behind one of the pilots while they flew over the property and spotted the cows.

Also: to somebody who didn't grow up in this area, that probably sounds really silly...but keep in mind that cows are worth a couple of thousand dollars each. So you're talking, low end, about $12,000 worth of property that they won't return. That's like having a stolen car.

\--

I think something like this (flying a UAV, since CBP doesn't actually fly drones) should require a search warrant, but this is a totally reasonable use of resources IMHO.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I guess.

[1]: They'd probably give a tour to anybody that asked, actually. Grand Forks is home to one of the biggest and best Aviation and Aerospace engineering schools in the world[2], and it would surprise me if there wasn't a relationship between the air force base there, and the school. If any HNers are ever up there, I'd suggest asking for a tour.

[2]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aeros...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Odegard_School_of_Aerospace_Sciences)

<comment><USER16> 2k for a cow? Try 60 dollars...[http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle- resources/cow-calf/price...](http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle- resources/cow-calf/prices/cow-prices-by-us--state-114538214.html)

<comment><USER15> I'm looking around the internet, and seeing prices all over the place actually. $60 is the lowest I've seen, NASDAQ.com says $120, some farming websites are saying $1000-$2000, etc.

<comment><USER17> If you're seeing numbers < $200, those are almost certainly in $/ctw which is the price per 100 lbs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The SWAT issue is a different issue IMO, more related to politicians wanting to "do something" at the Federal and State levels. "Doing something" translates to "allocate funding". That money can pay for more cops/overtime, or stuff. Or it may be earmarked by a congressman whose donor makes light tanks to only buy tanks.

The us vs. them stuff is related to the state of affairs in high-crime communities. Cops can't relate to the people they interact with (and vice versa) because they essentially live in different societies -- they might as well be different planets.

If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant on some guy in a house, he will take them along. The cop has no idea who may be behind a door when they knock -- they may be intoxicated/high, have a vicious pit bull, or just be a scared kid with a gun and nothing to lose. The policeman wants to go home to see his kids at the end of his shift.

<comment><USER19> > If a policeman has access to body armor and machine guns to serve a warrant > on some guy in a house, he will take them along.

Interestingly, in the UK, where regular policemen don't carry guns, most policemen apparently _don 't want_ to have firearms.

Obviously this is a rather different culture, and there's a difference between a collective matter (should we all be armed?) and an individual matter (should I be armed today for this particular call?). But I mention this to point out that human nature isn't as simple as everyone wielding the biggest stick available to them.

<comment><USER20> I think part of the reason for UK police not wanting guns is primarily what the UK police see as their mission: It is community policing, where UK police try to work within and with the permission of the community because they feel they're most effective that way (also called "policing by consent"). [http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php](http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/policeNine.php)

Police carrying guns makes them "scary" to the general public, and as such damages their primary mission (see above). It is also hugely damaging to the police's reputation when someone gets shot (even righteously) and would be catastrophic if someone was illegitimately killed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Meneze...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes)).

The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas. They also seem to have an "us Vs. them" attitude about the general public, and are less interested in earning respect but rather taking it by force or coercion ("thin blue line," "respect my authority," "quit resisting," etc).

<comment><USER21> > The US police is VERY militarized in Urban areas.

U.S. urban areas are very militarized. London, a city of 8 million people, had 100 murders last year. Over the last 20 years, the number broke 200 only once, in 2003. Chicago, a city of only 2.7 million people, had 532 last year. And this is way down from the peak. Murders in U.S. cities peaked in the early 1990's. L.A. county had 2,589 murders at its peak in 1993. New York peaked at 2,245 murders in 1990.

<comment><USER22> This is true but a lot of these murders are gang related so it isn't quite a great comparison not?

I know the topics of guns in america is a hot topic in general but even for the usa the general trend is downward.

<comment><USER21> Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent bystanders getting caught in the cross- fire can have a chilling effect on the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community.

The trend in America is definitely downward--murder counts in LA county and NYC are about a fifth of what they were in the early 1990's, but they are still 4x higher than London's (greater London is roughly similar in population to LA county and NYC). And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed. That apparatus hasn't demobilized in response to decreased crime rates.

<comment><USER23> > Gang-related murders are the result of gang activity, and gang-activity is > very scary for a community. First, lots of teenagers and young people are > gang members, and gangs have major presences in inner-city schools, so even > a "gang-related murder" isn't like some mobster getting killed, but > something that hits really close to home in the community. Second, this > activity is very geographically segregated, which makes particular > neighborhoods seem more like war zones. Third, even a few innocent > bystanders getting caught in the cross-fire can have a chilling effect on > the community. In Chicago this year, a kid who sang at Obama's inauguration > was gunned down in gang-related cross-fire. Just one kid in a city of 2.7 > million people, but it still had a tremendous effect on the community.

Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive.

> And the militarization of the U.S. police didn't happen overnight. It > happened in the 1970's-1990's when crime rates in U.S. cities skyrocketed.

Violent crime rates in cities have been on a declining trend since the late 70s/early 80s. The militarization isn't caused by violent crime, because we would expect as rates fall that there would be no call to increase police power at any given time. You are definitely right, the policing issue is really institutional in nature, but as a systemic kind of effect it isn't necessarily tied to any factual reality about crime.

<comment><USER24> >Of course, the solution for this is not policing but rather to address the fundamental social inequalities that make gangs thrive.

I disagree that the fundamental reason for gangs is social inequality. The feature that general makes gangs distinct from clubs is their use of force. They use force for the same reason society at large uses force, to protect property /enforce contracts/ensure fair play. Society at large has conceeded this force to the government (specifically the police department), however when the police fail to protect a certain group of people, then those people may be forced to take enforcement into their own hands, which is exactly what gangs do.

This problem stems largly from the war on drugs. There is a huge economic force pushing for drug sales, so capitalism tells us that drugs will be sold. However, the people engaging in the drug trade cannot rely on the legal system for the protections any other business has, so they have to do it themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The job of the US' domestic police force is to serve and protect; the job of the military is to defend the nation against foreign enemies. When police forces become militaristic, the citizens become the foreign enemy.

<comment><USER26> The job of the US domestic police force is to serve and protect _the status quo_ (NOT individuals). Be against that, and you're against the police. Police aren't paid to care what the status quo is, but the status quo pay the police. And who is the status quo (ask yourself)

The methods they use to protect and serve that ideal just need to be one step less that what the masses will absolutely tolerate. If they cross that line, you get a riot.

Police violate individual citizen rights _all the time_ and usually it's just ignored. It's a sorry state of affairs. That's why I'm afraid of police and police actions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Google the story about 7 cops in VA that went after a 17yr old girl because she was carrying non alcoholic fruit soda the cops thought were wine coolers. They handled this by breaking through her car windows guns drawn like they were seals going after bin laden lol.

<comment><USER28> Actually, it was a 20-year-old college student with a 12-pack of water, and they failed to break her windows because she drove away when the crowd of large men ran up and started beating on her car, and then they charged her with assault.

<comment><USER29> The charges were dropped.

<comment><USER30> Heads should roll for them being filed in the first place.

<comment><USER31> Rolling heads? The police? Their idea of decapitation is early retirement on a full pension.

<comment><USER30> Ugh, I know right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people" -Commander William Adama, Battlestar Galactica

<comment><USER33> Do you think it matter if veterans were disallowed from joining law enforcement? Without getting into constitutionality arguments, would it really make the country safer for all its citizens (and not just those lucky enough to never be confronted by cops)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> It's interesting to contrast the approach taken in different countries. I spent the majority of my life in New Zealand but the last 9 years in the UK so I've witnessed it first hand.

Within the first couple of months of arriving here (London) I had attended several large gatherings, for example festivals in and out of London, and there was a marked difference in the police handling. I was genuinely surprised when I realised that the police controlling the events were interested in the safety and enjoyment of the public. They weren't looking to stir up trouble, they weren't searching for the "bad eggs" to antagonise - they were just trying to do their best to control the situation by working with those involved.

In my time in NZ I saw the police carry out all sorts of actions that were completely unnecessary.

I saw someone arrested for overloading a car with people leaving a party - prior to that I watched the police insist that the driver allow the car to be overloaded in the first place.

I was once tripped from behind by the police (on the pavement) for walking alongside a protest on my way home from University.

Might not seem like big issues but I've seen countless similar examples where the police were actually responsible for instigating the problem.

There's very much an Us vs Them attitude in NZ that, thankfully, isn't the norm in the UK (for the moment).

<comment><USER35> What city were you in? I haven't experienced anything like this - but I've always been in Auckland. That sounds bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> A large number of police officers are former military personnel. It's not surprising that this militarized philosophy is common among police today.

<comment><USER37> This is an awful generalization, there are many veterans that see this as excessive and abhorrent. They left the Middle East to trade the military environment for quiet(er) civilian life.

<comment><USER33> Yet they presumably chose to join the military, right? Is it really excessive and abhorrent to suggest that those who decide to join the military would tend towards militarized philosophies? They're not saints.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It would be interesting to get a lot of data (HN specialty!) looking at the breakdown of all the different approaches. It seems like there are 2 extremes, and a wide variety from place to place.

Certain parts of NYC has seen amazingly drops in violent crime due to more "community-oriented" policing that requires officers to integrate themselves into the fabric of the neighborhoods in their precincts (I _think_ it's NYC...). On the other end, you have that Salon article about SWAT teams gone willy nilly.

Some basic correlations, and visualizations showing comparative effectiveness of the different techniques could go a long way....

</comment><comment><USER39> As with everything else it seems to be a case of misplaced incentives, both good and bad.

Imagine in 2 out of every 100 raids (numbers completely made up of course) that these style raids are called for - the people inside are incredibly dangerous and bargin in unannounced is the safest thing to do. Based on what I've read these police forces seem to treat every situation like this. Whether a hardened criminal or some dude playing poker with his friends they assume the worst and barge in guns a blazing.

And what happens? 2 times out of 100 they nail the bad guys and are probably congratulated on the local news and within the department. And the other 98 times? Nothing. They hand out some minor violations and leave, none the worse for it. Or again that's what it seems the case is based on these articles. So why wouldn't they just barge in and do whatever the hell they want. They are either heroes or the people they are terrorizing have no way to fight back. There needs to be some way to either punish them for this or positively incentivize more civil raids/raiding at all.

As the financial crisis showed us, bankers would bet the country if it meant they get a bigger bonus. It seems we are a point where the police will essentially do the same.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'm in constant awe of the state of fear in this country.

</comment><comment><USER41> One of my best friends is NYPD working in the projects in Brownsville NY, one of the most dangerous cities in NYC. From the stories he tells me, he _is_ fighting a war.

Of course, that's not applicable to most other areas, but it's worth noting that when your day-to-day job is dealing with the criminals and scum of the earth, it changes your perspective on life.

<comment><USER42> Forgive my pedantry, but: dangerous as it is, Brownsville is not a city, but rather a neighborhood of Brooklyn, NY:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownsville,_Brooklyn

<comment><USER41> You are correct, but not forgiven. Sometimes I wonder why no mistake may go uncorrected on the internet...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Here in Hawai'i, we're lucky to have small communities, from which many of our police officers are enlisted, thus maintaining more of sense that we are all part of the same class, as well as the fact that many officers are related to people in the communities, so there is less disconnection and stratification than one would see in larger metropolitan areas.

I've been on both sides of the law here, and have always been treated with the utmost respect and humanity, even when I didn't deserve such. (a couple of drunken incidents, which will shame me for the rest of my days)

Sure our local police force has an armored, Lenco Bearcat, which they rarely use, but such measures are necessary in today's world - where criminals possess military-grade weapons.

This is not to say that I disagree with the article, as it's plain to see that the points made in the article are valid for a large portion of the USA.

I guess all I can say is... _Lucky we live Hawai 'i!_

<comment><USER44> I find that hard to believe. I grew up in Hawaii, and I have come across lots of dick head cops engaging in some heinous activities. I have several friends from Oahu who would also agree with my statement.

<comment><USER43> O'ahu is _NOT_ the Big Island...

But the Big Island _is_ Hawai'i, and I've lived on this island for my entire life, with the exception of military service.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> In the interest of playing devil's advocate, couldn't the fact that we have 94 guns per 100 Americans have something to do with it? To be honest, the cops that work in Oakland, Compton, Detroit, Chicago, and many other cities effectively are fighting wars with heavily armed gangs, etc.

I don't know that I buy the notion that police are the way they are today because of the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam protests. Seems to me like the rise of inner city violence is a far bigger mover.

Not trying to justify militarized police, just trying to understand the reasons why in order to logically approach alternatives.

<comment><USER46> Murders are WAY down from their peaks in the 90's. And that's across the board. So what violence are they encountering now, that they didn't encounter in... say ... '93 when they had no APC?

<comment><USER47> In continuing the devil's advocate angle here, there is a lot of scary stuff going on in Mexico right now. Some of that spilling over the border(or more realistically, the people and equipment are already here just unnoticed) is a possibility.

<comment><USER46> But that's supposition. Have there been any border skirmishes, or skirmishes in cities with large Hispanic populations, (I assume you are talking about Mexican Cartels), where the police faced these well equipped Mexican Cartels?

I don't know if there have or haven't... that was not snark, but a serious question. My suspicion is that there have not been any such engagements.

<comment><USER48> No. Cartel crime is almost exclusively in Mexico.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Somewhat tangential: There has long been a tie-in between the military and the police. Former military members make an easier transition to the police, and a lot of policemen have a strong weekend-warrior, macho mentality and like big guns and things that go boom. Plus the rank system is similar, there's use of deadly force, and so on.

The U.S. has also seen major mission creep in the military. Instead of going in and bringing a devastating kinetic assault to an enemy in order to get them to surrender, now we're in the mission of Counter-Insurgency (COIN), nation- building, handing out candy to kids, and air-lifting supplies in to earthquake victims.

Because of all of that, I think we need a new branch of the armed forces specifically set aside for nation-building, humanitarian relief, and so forth. It's a completely different mission from the other branches, and deserves its own budget, training, and voice. _Then_ , civilian police forces should only pull military members from that branch.

We need to separate the warrior mentality from the protect and serve, community-friendly mentality. Some organizational re-alignment may help.

<comment><USER50> Here's a TED talk discussing such a military realignment:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I don't know how we got here, but you must admit that SWAT teams in mine- resistant personnel carriers sure look spiffy. If your police force isn't ready for battle, the terrorists win

<comment><USER52> You're More Likely to be Killed by a Toddler than a Terrorist. ([http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/youre-more-likely- to-...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/youre-more-likely-to-be-killed- by-a-toddler-than-a-terrorist.html))

<comment><USER53> From the article: "–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist"... Wow, so we need a war against... The police? If we follow todays logic?

<comment><USER54> You misunderstand his point: what we really need is a war on toddlers.

<comment><USER55> Toddlers are assholes anyways. I really support this endeavor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> "But whether it's with the ubiquity of these SWAT raids, stop-and-frisk, or the default geared-up, Robocop response to political protest, the relationship between police and the public on the whole is growing increasingly antagonistic -- and oddly, this comes during a period when both crime and on- duty police deaths are at historic lows."

Author seems to completely miss the possibility that this is causal.

Edit: Just see gizmo686's comment below. Pretty much sums up my line of thinking.

<comment><USER57> Or maybe the author doesn't want to pull something completely out his ass? Isn't this what we criticize journalists for? Especially in social sciences reporting?

There has been a lot of spilled ink regarding why big city crime has been going down with lots of decent theories (abortion access, gentrification, easier access to higher education, smarter policing, larger prison population, etc) and I've never really heard that heavy handed SWAT tactics account for this.

<comment><USER24> But the author is making a claim that this is a contradiction. There is an obvious explanation that disagrees with the author that was ommited. That is exactly what we complain about in journalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Anything that keeps us scared and submissive works well for the plutocracy. Citizens should never think that they live in a neighborhood, oh no, they live in a terrorist infested war zone.

</comment><comment><USER59> Yet another reason to not have guns in your house.

If you get raided by overzealous police that don't even identify themselves properly, and you have a gun that you try to use for self defense... EOF

<comment><USER24> In other words, you shouldn't have a gun because some scary men might break into your house and point their guns at you.

<comment><USER60> You shouldn't have a gun except for things you care about more than your and others' lives. Having one makes it far more likely for a violent encounter to escalate into a lethal one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Relevant via The Wire: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5za4VsskM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA5za4VsskM)

</comment><comment><USER62> Cop/Soldiers are banned from thinking out of the box

</comment><comment><USER63> Oh boy you have to visit Turkey sometime.

It is not just war, it is a religious war! They attack people while chanting "Allah Allah Allah...".

</comment><comment><USER21> How did we get here? When gangs and organized crime turned the cities into war zones in the 1970's and 1980's.

<comment><USER64> Then why did the practice only catch on and spread like wild-fire after crime had already begun its plunge?

And why, after crime has continued to drop dramatically, has SWAT-ification continued to increase (if not accelerated) rather than plateau or even drop in response?

<comment><USER21> Once you've built up an organization like that, it's hard to demobilize it. Public unions basically make it impossible to shrink police forces.

<comment><USER64> Blaming unions would probably have worked better, back before the banking crisis forced many communities to do exactly what you suggest can't be done.

That said, you do raise a good point that it's career-suicide to advocate reducing police budgets in the US unless absolutely necessary -- and even then it isn't ever well-received.

(Which makes the (in)ability to actually reduce staffing a secondary problem, at best.)

But none of that excuses continued _growth_ in the face of plunging crime, let alone the _acceleration_ in _use_ of such tactics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Since I can't flag the story, I'd like someone to explain to me how in the hell they consider this "Hacker News".

Seriously, this article, and all 22 comments of this discussion belong on reddit.

<comment><USER66> If you think limited freedom cultures are good for our work go on ahead ignoring this stuff. Or realize that we generally need a good free society to work in and flourish in and these are all precursor warnings to more political crack downs that could drastically curb the hacker scene in the US. There are already increased cases of security researchers getting the SWAT treatment followed by jail. Who thinks thats good. These articles are digging deeper into the why this is happening trying to look for ways to prevent it before it tanks the US tech scene.

I'd say that's relevant but if you disagree put your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and wait another decade and we'll see

<comment><USER65> _If you think limited freedom cultures are good for our work go on ahead ignoring this stuff._

I exist outside of HN.

HN though is where I want to see technology articles and discussion, not politics.

From the guidelines:

 _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they 're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

<comment><USER67> Between this and the PRISM stories, some hackers seem to think the interesting new phenomenon of a US surveillance state run by warlords is just as important to talk about as the Nth new javascript framework or blog post about MVPs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Simple, do you see the limits to preventive actions they can take in most cities? Have you read how "rights" activist are going to strip NYC cops from doing just that which has resulted in an incredible drop in murders and similar crimes?

We got there because we stopped police from policing and instead forced them to respond to situations left to build until they explode.

We got there by telling them, no you can't look at that guy because of where he lives, where he doesn't live, his skin color, the type of clothing he wears, or such.

<comment><USER23> > Have you read how "rights" activist are going to strip NYC cops from doing > just that which has resulted in an incredible drop in murders and similar > crimes?

You are no doubt referring to stop and frisk. I'm so tired of having to say this to folks, but the violent crime rate in NYC has been dropping since before stop and frisk was a policy. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence or study that gives a direct causation for the fall in violent crime rates in NYC, even though Bloomberg and Ray Kelly will continue to claim otherwise.

> We got there by telling them, no you can't look at that guy because of where > he lives, where he doesn't live, his skin color, the type of clothing he > wears, or such.

If you think the race and poverty oriented profiling that the police employ make you safer, you are totally mistaken. They encourage harm to communities of predominantly black and hispanic people, they encourage imprisonment of those people, they encourage the destruction of those communities, and they encourage the increased power of the police force over all aspects of a city.

<comment><USER69> There is very good evidence that the reduction in crime is related to the levels of lead in blood. The correlation between crime and lead levels is found on the international, national, state, city and even block by block level.

Stop and frisk can be legally done, but the way the NYPD implements it is clearly discriminatory. There is no better way to create a criminal than to treat someone like one from adolescence.

[http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime- li...](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link- gasoline)</comment></comment></comment>


US ambassador asks Swiss banks to service Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/frozen-out_us-ambassador-asks-swiss-banks-to-service-americans/42532156 <comment><USER2> I believe she's barking at the wrong tree.

She ought to contact the IRS and tell them not to fine foreign banks for trivial reporting mistakes, or they won't take the chance only for a savings account.

</comment><comment><USER3> Shouldn't that verb be "serve"? "Service" sounds like they're auto mechanics. Or hookers.</comment>


It's not too late to "break in" to crypto - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/its-not-too-late-to-break-in-to-crypto-5b7a8704749?source=user_profile<comment>---4</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment> </comment><comment><USER2> FYI: the author is referring to cryptocurrency when they say "crypto" and not cryptography, making the title somewhat ambiguous and from my point of view disappointing and sort of clickbait-y.</comment>


Rich Programmer Food (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2007/06/rich-programmer-food.html

<comment><USER2> I took compilers. Maybe the class wasn't advanced enough, but it didn't seem that groundbreaking after learning about state machines in a sophomore-level digital logic class. I don't see how you can learn enough about such a vast topic in the context of a single-semester course to the extent that you are preventing a guaranteed place among the "b-list" programmers. Are great programming skills really born out of a single class?</comment>


What do you think about opening doors with the flash of your smartphone? - Laura-Vieujean HAVR, the first smart lock opening with light.
A patented and safe solution that functions without a bridge or Bluetooth, but works with an encrypted code in the flash of your smartphone ! <comment><AUTHOR> My first reaction is that the pattern would be readable by other devices nearby (including skimmers designed for that purpose). I guess that wouldn't matter if there was an underlying sequence-changing algorithm known only to both devices, a la spread-spectrum frequency hopping.

</comment><comment><USER2> so I'm guessing something like Time-based One-Time Password algorithm (TOTP) then flashed out from flashlight to the sensor on the door?

Why not just TOTP in my google Authenticator app then just type into keypad?

Like this: [https://github.com/cathalgarvey/formadoor](https://github.com/cathalgarvey/formadoor)

</comment><comment><USER3> How well does it work in a sunny day?

<comment> Laura-Vieujean This new technology works in all types of weather. HAVR, reacts not with sunlight as such but with the bright transmission of the flash (on-off tones/signals), a little bit as a unique morse code.

<comment><USER3> I understand that it's not opened by a lot of light, but with some pattern in the light intensity.

My question is how reliable it is in a sunny day when there is a lot of background light and the signal to noise is much smaller. Do you have a working prototype?</comment></comment></comment>


Steve Jobs First Conceived "Statement HQ" for Apple in 1983 - <AUTHOR> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/steve_jobs_first_conceived_statement_hq_for_apple_in_1983/ <comment><USER2> The article doesn't say that much, but I do like the (supposed) fact that the best restaurant in San Jose at the time was a Sizzler.</comment>


Ask HN: What can I do at home to grow professionally? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking to grow as a Software Engineer, and I would love to hear ideas about things one can do outside the office to progress your career.<p>I was going to include a list of things that I've done/I'm doing, but I rather get fresh ideas and not bias the conversation. <comment><USER2> If you're just starting your career, side projects will have the biggest impact. Mastery comes from dedicated practice and side projects are just that. Make sure you're learning new tech, patterns, languages, whatever, but the more you learn now the faster you'll rank up.

If you're more senior, the biggest impacts will come from networking. Figure out where you want your career/life to go, then work towards that. Want to be CTO? Want to work at XYZ tech co? Want to start a business? Doesn't matter, make some friends and start networking.

I'm a big advocate for leveraging the energy of your youth, but make sure you're spending it wisely. There's more to life than working.

</comment><comment><USER3> One thing I enjoyed that blended a hobby with programming-adjacent skills: building a homelab. You can mess around with hosting things on a raspberry pi or go nuts with rackmounted servers, but I've had a lot of fun with it. The more in-depth knowledge you can gain around things like networking and DNS and system administration has helped me a lot in understanding and manipulating the environment my code runs in at my job.

</comment><comment><USER4> Reading and Exercising are almost definitely going to put in you in an advantageous position

</comment><comment><USER5> Do some hobbies that aren't related to software at all. Best advance comes from unexpected experience (woodworking, doing meetups, etc.)

Remember it's ok to not code outside work, even if you want to advance professionally. An artisan don't work outside his shop.

</comment><comment><USER6> In my opinion, side projects are the best way. However the real struggle comes growing professionally as a developer without other people to learn from. If you are doing this full time, you can always gain exposure to others in a local coworking space.

</comment><comment><USER7> MOOCs, Build things, Network, Learn Sales/ Management skills, Save money (the best way to advance your career is to have options), Read books... a lot of books.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the best online course you've ever taken? - <AUTHOR> Doesn't exactly have to be a MOOC. YouTube playlists and any other way of learning is fine too. Paid ones are fine as well. <comment><USER2> The sadly-discontinued Udacity CS 253 (Web Application Engineering) with Steve Huffman. Partly because of the accessibility of the material and Steve's sometimes puckish delivery (learning sick MongoDB burns in 2012 put me way ahead of the tech curve). Learning how to build and deploy a web app in Python with the super-lightweight webapp2, rolling your own salted-and-hashed account system... so many good tidbits that gave me a good intuition about how web apps are put together.

The timing of the course also couldn't have been better for me personally. It was released about 2 weeks after I quit my job. I wanted to learn how to build digital products, and after struggling with scattered tutorials, CS 253 was like being thrown a life preserver.

Thanks, Steve.

<comment><USER3> Are we sure it was discontinued? It is still listed on Udacity[0] and another course titled "Intro to Backend"[1].

I enjoyed that course by the way.

[0]: [https://eu.udacity.com/course/web-development-- cs253](https://eu.udacity.com/course/web-development--cs253) [1]: [https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-backend-- ud171](https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-backend--ud171)

<comment><USER2> There it is! Thanks for finding — somehow all my Googling ended up on Udacity 404 pages...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://www.fast.ai/](https://www.fast.ai/)

The only online course I've undertaken, so of course it's the best one. But it's exceptionally well made, it's up to date, teaches about a wide area of machine learning and AI field. Not just the theory, but about Kaggle, how professional AI designers work, what they do, "what it's all about", and so forth. The community is helpful, the forums are active. All free btw. Very good!

</comment><comment><USER5> I have spent a lot of time taking online courses. Here are my favorites.

CS50 ([https://www.edx.org/course/cs50s-introduction-computer- scien...](https://www.edx.org/course/cs50s-introduction-computer-science- harvardx-cs50x)) - Best Intro to Computer Science

Nand2Tetris I and II ([https://www.coursera.org/learn/build-a- computer](https://www.coursera.org/learn/build-a-computer)) - Build a computer from logic gates up to a compiler, this is the best class I've ever taken.

Agile Development Using Ruby on Rails ([https://www.edx.org/professional- certificate/agile-developme...](https://www.edx.org/professional- certificate/agile-development-using-ruby-rails)) - Great introduction to web development and software engineering principles

I've also been reading some technical books. Would definitely recommend

Modern Operating Systems - Tanenbaum Designing Data-Intensive Applications - Kleppmann

</comment><comment><USER6> Functional Programming Principles in Scala [https://www.coursera.org/learn/progfun1](https://www.coursera.org/learn/progfun1) on Coursera. It's taught by Martin Odersky, one of the language's creators. Very well organized, highly automated assignment testing (you submit via CLI). I went in wanting to learn Scala, but what I learned about FP has stayed with me for years. Even though I've moved on from Scala I'm a much better programmer for having taken that course.

</comment><comment><USER7> From a previous comment of mine:

Barbara Oakley's _Learning How To Learn_ class [0] was immensely helpful for understanding how brains work and how I could learn efficiently.

I made it through college with a combination of cramming and bad sleep habits, but focusing on spaced repetition, the diffuse/active modes, and sleep has made classes I've taken since feel like easy mode.

[0]: [https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn)

<comment><USER8> Dr. Oalkley's book

[https://barbaraoakley.com/books/a-mind-for- numbers/](https://barbaraoakley.com/books/a-mind-for-numbers/)

Added a lot of clarity to my process of thinking. Highly recommend as well (I did not take the course, though, just found the book by accident).

<comment><USER9> What is the youngest age you think could handle this book?

<comment><USER8> I am not an expert by any means. But asking child at, say, age 13 to read portions of it and explain back to parents, what she/he picked up from there -- will work well.

Probably a type of 'self-awareness' of own's thinking process does not start before 11.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [cs50]([https://online- learning.harvard.edu/course/cs50-introduction...](https://online- learning.harvard.edu/course/cs50-introduction-computer-science)) is the reason I am a software engineer today.

<comment><USER11> I took this course with someone I was teaching webdev. It wasn't the best course for me by any means because I already knew the material.

But it WAS the best introduction to software development I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.

I did see a couple of people quit the course because it was "too complicated" \- in reality, it's just complicated enough, and the progression is natural and well-presented.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> RR Buildings How to Build a Garage [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwUl4cm8fQ&list=PLvo- lhQgsI...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwUl4cm8fQ&list=PLvo- lhQgsIOg7Yh3aaLwkUJviPv6s4Cv3)

This YouTube series (in fact his channel in general) makes construction look simple, accessible and rewarding. He explains theory while demonstrating practice, and the end result is not abstract knowledge but a real building that can house all manner of other physical (and digital) projects.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've taken quite a few online courses, but none better than JS30 from WesBos. Really good stuff - a set of 30 videos where you create 30 small JavaScript projects. Great for people already familiar with JS and trying to get more comfortable!

I've converted all 30 videos into blog format (with live code samples) here [https://www.discoverdev.io/blog/series/js30/](https://www.discoverdev.io/blog/series/js30/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Learning how to learn from coursera is my all time favourite. I have gone over the course material a few times just to make sure I don't forget all the things the professors talk about.

</comment><comment><USER15> Definitely Eric Lander's _Introduction to Biology - The Secret Of Life_ class (MITx 7.00x)

Firm grounding in the Central Dogma. Covers the entire history of genetics. From Gregor Mendel's peas. To Morgenstern's Fruit Fly Lab. And right up to the present day Supreme Court BRCA case and CRISPR/Cas9. Essential background for understanding the coming century of New Biotech.

[https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-biology-the- secre...](https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-to-biology-the-secret-of- life-2)

<comment><USER16> I took this course recently. I Iove how he took you back in time and let you experience the importance of each discovery.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Every time someone asks this question -- and it gets asked here a lot, several people mention Learning To Learn. I always rolled my eyes.

Then I decided to check it out.

While the production quality is out of the 1990s and it starts off pretty dry, there is a lot of great content and applicable techniques here, if you stick with it a little bit.

[https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to- learn](https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn)

</comment><comment><USER18> [https://learngitbranching.js.org/](https://learngitbranching.js.org/) \- this was posted recently again. it's not perfect, and isn't going to completely de- mystify git. but it's a great exercise and seems to clear up a thing or two.

if i worked in a team again, i would probably make this a required course for new hires, no matter how much experience. it isn't hard, but i've seen the occasional experienced engineer complain it's too easy and beneath them, and then fail badly on the later stages - hmm, maybe they're lying about the experience. come to think of it, it'd probably be great in an interview, too.

<comment><USER19> I tried this a while back, and I am so confused by the rebasing part I figured I'd find something else. As someone who knows some git, but only has to used it every once in a while, this website does not help me..

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I really enjoyed the famous Andrew Ng's machine learning course on Coursera. That was my first exposure to MOOC and I was amazed that such great content was available for free.

<comment><USER21> Yes! 2013 was such a good year for mooc, andrew's ML course on Coursera, Sebastian's AI course on Udacity. Dan's AI course on edx.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Acloud.guru AWS cloud architect course, I did it through udemy, but they also have it through their own website. Well maintained, well presented material. Price can drop to $10 sometimes with free lifetime updates.

</comment><comment><USER23> Making Data Count, from NHS Improvement:

[https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/making-data- count/](https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/making-data-count/)

[https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/2748/NHS_MAKING_DATA_CO...](https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/2748/NHS_MAKING_DATA_COUNT_FINAL.pdf)

This makes a statistical tool accessible and useful to people who have no stats training. It explains why SPCs are usually better than the widely used RAG charts.

</comment><comment><USER24> [https://work.caltech.edu/telecourse.html](https://work.caltech.edu/telecourse.html)

This is a real Caltech course, not a made-for-online offering. When I took it, we shared the online forum with undergrads taking the class on campus, and Professor Abu-Mostafa was incredibly responsive to all kinds of questions.

The course covers the theory and mathematics behind various machine learning techniques. It's not a practical course that just teaches you to use some particular library.

</comment><comment><USER25> It'd be between fast.ai and javascript30.com

Fast.ai has an incredible library built on PyTorch and it's amazing when he talks about the latest research and already has it available for free there. The teaching style is super nice too, very practical and without skipping the bits that get you to world class results.

Javascript30 is 30 free short modern JavaScript lessons with no libraries or builds or any of that stuff. Great way to get back on track and catch up with what vanilla is can do, and Wes Bos is exceptional as a teacher.

</comment><comment><USER26> the Startup Engineering MOOC on Coursera taught by Balaji Srinivasan (CTO of Coinbase now, Stanford prof back then) was extremely valuable to go through, both from a technical and non-technical standpoint. It was kinda like the "How To Start A Startup" course going on right now except slightly more preparatory for the technical challenges involved

course page: [http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup- engineering](http://online.stanford.edu/course/startup-engineering) and [http://startup.stanford.edu/](http://startup.stanford.edu/)

course videos: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL58C6Q25sEEFVyISrZc80...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL58C6Q25sEEFVyISrZc80..).

</comment><comment><USER27> HBX CORe, Online course from Harvard (actually more like a few courses bundled into one) that I expected to be high level managerial focused but was pleasantly surprised to be very hands on with spreadsheets and whatnot [https://hbx.hbs.edu/courses/core/](https://hbx.hbs.edu/courses/core/). Close second is Living at the Nuclear Brink by Dr. Perry (Former US Secretary of Defense) which was incredibly informative [https://online.stanford.edu/courses/fsi-y0002-living- nuclear...](https://online.stanford.edu/courses/fsi-y0002-living-nuclear- brink-yesterday-and-today)

</comment><comment><USER28> MIT's 6.00.1x on edX, it is a quality introduction to programming and python. I took it almost 5 years ago and would highly recommend it for motivated beginners. The most recent session seems to have just concluded so there may be another one coming up soon.

</comment><comment><USER29> OSCP: [https://www.offensive-security.com/information-security- cert...](https://www.offensive-security.com/information-security- certifications/oscp-offensive-security-certified-professional/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Fast.ai probably. And MIT 18.06 linear Algebra with Gilbert Strang is also pretty awesome

</comment><comment><USER31> "Science of the Solar System" by Michael Brown is a great introduction to the topic. It has a 4.9 star rating :-)

[https://www.coursera.org/learn/solar- system](https://www.coursera.org/learn/solar-system) \- i think it's still free, right?

Unit 1: Water on Mars - 3 weeks

Unit 2: The insides of giant planets - 2 weeks

Unit 3: Big questions from small bodies - 2 weeks

Unit 4: Life in the solar system - 2 weeks

</comment><comment><USER32> Google analytics course from google ([https://analytics.google.com/analytics/academy/](https://analytics.google.com/analytics/academy/))

This opens the curtains to what happens behind a website and provides data for every discussion in marketing/product/etc. Taking this when I was 18 years old literally kickstarted my career.

</comment><comment><USER33> Dan Boneh's (Stanford) Cryptography I on Coursera.

Excellent course; he is a fantastic teacher.

<comment><USER34> +1 - Looking forward for Cryptography II

<comment><USER35> I've been waiting five years for that, I suspect it isn't coming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> We had this question earlier this year, but for MOOCs only:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16745042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16745042)

</comment><comment><USER37> A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment [https://www.coursera.org/learn/happiness](https://www.coursera.org/learn/happiness)

<comment><USER38> Thanks for this suggestion! I did The Science of Happiness [https://www.edx.org/course/the-science-of- happiness](https://www.edx.org/course/the-science-of-happiness). Not sure what "the best" really means, but I think it had the biggest impact on my life.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Database lecture series by CMU DB group - taught/managed by - twitter.com/andy_pavlo - just amazing.

</comment><comment><USER40> I've been working on a course recently [1] on Building an App from Scratch Using Ruby on Rails (not revolutionary I know, but needed to start somewhere).

Building a truly great course is pretty difficult.

[1] [https://www.nimblehq.com](https://www.nimblehq.com)

</comment><comment><USER41> I really love the new CS50 on twitch series, love the way they explore many stack and tech as it is basically help me to understand the many

[https://m.twitch.tv/cs50/profile](https://m.twitch.tv/cs50/profile) Cs50 - Twitch

<comment><USER42> That link didn't work for me. Did you mean:

[https://www.twitch.tv/cs50tv](https://www.twitch.tv/cs50tv)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> [https://course.elementsofai.com/](https://course.elementsofai.com/) Offered by the University of Helsinki optionally for credit and to be followed with another course using Python programming.

</comment><comment><USER44> I found very useful the "How to Start an Startup" series: [https://startupclass.samaltman.com](https://startupclass.samaltman.com)

</comment><comment><USER45> Since we are on the topic of online classes, do you folks know any good advanced music theory/counterpoint courses?

</comment><comment><USER46> [https://egghead.io/](https://egghead.io/)

</comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know a MOOC on procedural generation, or generative art?

</comment><comment><USER48> I have taken C programming course by Shibaji from udmey.

</comment><comment><USER49> OSCP

</comment><comment><USER50> I'm currently taking udacity's AI for trading class. It's a little pricey ($999 for the first term), but damn, it's so good. Best class I've ever taken, online or otherwise.</comment>


Chromakode's xkcdfools at master - GitHub - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/chromakode/xkcdfools <comment><USER2> Looks like you can use the Konami code on the site, too. No idea what it does though.

<comment><USER3> On xkcd.com, it flashed the screen white and made everything uppercase.

<comment><USER4> Keep doing it for a couple more easter eggs.</comment></comment></comment>