'No One Saw a Thing': When a Midwest Town Banded Together to Kill the Town Bully - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedailybeast.com/no-one-saw-a-thing-when-a-small-midwest-town-banded-together-to-kill-the-town-bully <comment><USER2> > frontier justice came for McElroy courtesy of the residents of Skidmore > (population 440 at the time of the crime). Shaken by the man's ability to > evade jail even after being convicted of a near-fatal attack on a grocery > store owner... Belkin also details Skidmore's plague of subsequent violence > ... the series persuasively contends that these crimes indicate that the > McElroy episode taught younger Skidmore generations that doing as they > savagely pleased was OK—and that they could get away with it, because their > friends and neighbors wouldn't speak out against them.

I'm not persuaded, at least by this text. Another possible interpretation is that the legal system around Skidmore was completely unable to convict a repeat violent offender (McElroy), leading to a widespread (correct) belief that the legal system would not also provide any kind of useful restraint to future offenders. Indeed, that interpretation seems more likely to me.

That doesn't make the actions acceptable, of course. But it does put a spotlight on the importance of having a _working_ legal system that provides some reasonable level of protection to the larger community.

<comment><USER3> I'm with the mob on this one. As another comment put it, he _was_ tried by a jury of his peers... if the justice system cannot help you then you have to take things into your own hands.

Might be hard for all us city slickers on HN to fathom, particularly when these sorts of country towns are frequently mocked or derided by people like us.

<comment><USER4> Some states, like Texas, still have the "needed killin'" defense: if a person accused of murder can prove to the jury that the victim needed killin', the jury will not convict (or will convict on a lesser charge). You have to pass a high bar to need killin': generally the defense only works if the accused can show that while not in _immediate_ danger of life and limb, they felt sufficiently credibly threatened by the victim to believe they were at continual risk of injury or death if they didn't strike first.

In most other states, homicide is only justifiable under the higher threshold of being in immediate danger.

<comment><USER5> It's not clear if you are referring to jury nullification here (which is not particular to Texas), to the reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter by heat of passion (which is not particular to Texas), or to some actual special aspect of Texas law (perhaps some part of the operation of the imperfect self- defense rule under Texas law). Could you provide more detail?

<comment><USER6> This made me curious too, so I went looking. Texas self defense law seem thoroughly standard for a southern/rural state. It has 'stand your ground' rules and a low charge rate for claims of self-defense, but neither is unusual.

There are only two exotic elements I can find. First, Texas permits the use of deadly force to stop some non-violent criminals (e.g. burglars, robbers) from escaping with property. Second, it allows deadly force over theft and criminal mischief _only at night_.

That last clause is pretty bizarre, but none of it adds up to anything like "needed killin". Deadly force to recover property is somewhat unusual, but that wouldn't apply to the case in the article either.

<comment><USER7> >That last clause is pretty bizarre

It makes more sense if you consider it the other way around. Theft and criminal mischief are considered violent crimes for the purposes of self defense if they happen at night.

The line between theft and burglary is blurry and subjective when you're talking about situations where someone is stealing something from someone's property at night and said theft causes them to be woken up and respond. The law is basically saying that for the purposes of self defense theft can be considered burglary by default in those cases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So my family actually knew the sheriff from the next county over. He picked up McElroy a couple times for various things. (I think being drunk etc.). Now when this was explained, this was 26-27 years ago, so my memory is a little fuzzy, but he explained that the man was a monster of an individual. (like huge.) The guy could pick up a hog from the other side of the fence and just walk off with it. Dead lifting a few hundred pounds, that's hard, and really scary to think someone can do that who doesn't like you. You don't cross an individual like that lightly.

You have to remember this was 35+ years ago when this all happened. Things aren't what they used to be now. People didn't make long distance calls back then, because it was too expensive. You lived out it in the middle of nowhere especially back then, you're on your own. No one is coming to help you if you're in serious trouble. My parents had this joke. They said the fire department had a perfect record around where we were. They hadn't saved a house yet. Don't get me wrong, they really respected the firemen. The point was that when you live 20+ miles away from the fire station, there is no possible way they are going to save the house in time. There was no GPS, and 911 had only been invented a little over a decade before. A lot of people didn't even own phones.

It's easy to talk about the rule of law, and how they should let the justice system work it out, but it's a different kind of law in those parts. In a town that size, everyone knows everyone, and you're always talking to someone's brother, cousin, sister, etc. Oh you filed a report against someone?...yeah word gets around. The kind you don't want. Evidence gets "lost", etc. A lot of times it was (and still is in certain places) easier to just keep your mouth shut and move on. I'm not saying I agree with what they did, and I wasn't in their position, so I don't know what I'd do. I can sure see why they thought that was the only recourse they had though.

<comment><USER9> Reminds me a bit of the series Gunsmoke, which I recently watched for the first time online. Surprisingly good. Time frame is earlier but the feeling of "frontier justice" resonates.

<comment><USER10> This is also the overall story arc of my favorite show ever, HBO's _Deadwood_ : a bunch of people, who were all attracted for various reasons to a place _specifically because it had no law_ (the town of Deadwood stood on land that had been ceded by treaty to the Sioux, and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law), slowly discover over three seasons all the reasons they actually need law after all.

<comment><USER11> The lack of an ending to that show was very frustrating.

There is a movie out to wrap up the story. I haven't seen it yet, but I have high hopes.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. And I haven't watched the movie yet either; I'm too afraid it won't be good enough to live up to the wait...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That many people feel what the townspeople did here was wrong is fascinating to me. It seems many people believe in certain ideals, as dogma, to the extent that they expect other people to suffer or even die upholding those ideals. The rule of law is important, yes. But why does anyone expect a town to let themselves be maimed and murdered to maintain the rule of law? This is an insane expectation. The people defended themselves. Nobody can criticize them for that. Yes of course it would better if law enforcement was fixed, but people often have no ability to fix that in any reasonable time frame. Meanwhile people are getting murdered.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps sometimes, people need to do things that, whilst we would do the same in their position, we still want to condemn as wrong. Not because we disagree with their action, but because we need to signal to the outside world that actions like it are wrong. The circumstances that made such an action acceptable to our minds privately are too nuanced, too easy to stretch to publicly say they made it okay.

As a consolation, in these kinds of cases, taking action and dealing with condemnation is still better than not taking action. Of course, it is not right that people have to choose between two wrongs (living with the situation, or taking action and being condemned for it).

But life isn't fair. That isn't a statement of 'pushing the world into a fair state is infeasible to the point of imposiblity'. Instead, it is a statement that 'there is no state of the world that could be described as fair.

Moreover, the effect of such 'unfair condemnation' is tempered by people like you. I suppose that an actual working society needs both voices. Certainly, the signaling effect does not require that the condemnation be universal, just that it is substantial.

<comment><USER13> We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Are you the queen?

<comment><USER11> We - members of society.

The sentence started with perhaps. Hence, this was a supposition about how society should be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> TFA doesn't explore at all how McElroy managed to "evade jail" after so many crimes. But it seems that basically there were enough people who would provide false alibis.[0] Maybe because he had threatened them.

0) [http://mentalfloss.com/article/574749/ken-mcelroy-murder- ski...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/574749/ken-mcelroy-murder-skidmore- missouri)

<comment><USER15> That's a much better article

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A similar episode was the basis for the historical novel "Killing Mister Watson" by Peter Mattheissen, which is one of my favorite books.

A ruthless man named Edgar Watson, who had purportedly killed several people in Oklahoma and Florida, settled in the coastal Everglades of Florida (Chokoloksee area) around the turn of the last century and started a sugar cane plantation. He was known for the 'Watson payday' where, at the end of the harvest season, he would gather all of the drifters and ne'er-do-wells he had hired as fieldhands and gun them down. Additional bad behavior toward his neighbors lead to all of the town's men standing in line and gunning him down as he landed his boat on Chokoloskee Island one day.

</comment><comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_McElroy#1981_killing) for a more to-the-point account.

<comment><USER9> Thanks, was going to write that this article was rather disappointing. It is more concerned with metadata about the miniseries and economic consequences rather than the story at the center.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There was a case not too long ago in India where a serial rapist kept evading conviction, so the women in the town gathered together, stabbed him to death, and then all confessed to the crime together. None of them ended up being convicted.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a review of the documentary covering a 'Town Bully' who had evaded authorities and continued to harm people repeatedly. In order to protect the community, a group of vigilantes murdered them, and the community refused to issue any statements to authorities regarding anyone's involvement.

I think broadly, I wonder what the place of vigilanteism like this should serve. The sentiments to protect the community against a man who isn't being recieved adequate justice- this in my opinion seems to echo the justification of other movements I'm aware of. There's often community discouse online on what to do with known bad actors when moderatorship isn't adequate for example.

<comment><USER20> it seems like a more extreme version of jury nullification. if it became widespread, it would essentially be the end of rule-of-law. but in isolated and rare situations, perhaps it's a beneficial escape valve? easy to suggest from my comfy office in a quiet suburb of course.

<comment><USER21> It's not a 'beneficial escape valve' when the community decides to, say, kill the n_______ who had the audacity to sleep with a white woman.

Which is a far more common application of lynching. We should not be glorifying this.

<comment><USER22> Regardless of whether or not vigilantism is ever justified, I don't think that killing someone that has made a credible threat which law enforcement has shown they are unable to protect you against is equivalent to killing motivated by racism.

<comment><USER21> Lynching has _always_ been driven by people reacting to what they believe was a credible threat, that law enforcement has failed to protect them from.

In the historic case, that 'credible threat' was 'race mixing', uppity ______s, jews that were too well off for their own good, etc.

When you let the most violent members of a small town community unilaterally decide what is, and what is not a credible threat, that is exactly what you will get.

<comment><USER23> Are you comparing a townspeople who faced daily threats of actual violence from a pedophile bully, and who watched him routinely evade justice in the courts, to lynch mobs who executed random people of a certain skin color for looking at someone's daughter the wrong way?

"Credible threat" has an actual meaning beyond just "whatever people think a 'credible threat' is".

<comment><USER21> It was credible enough to them that they would kill another human being over it.

The whole point of a lynch mob is that you get to throw out any objective standard of credible threat, and replace it with a subjective, heat-of-the- moment one, proposed by the thugs leading it, who know they will face no accountability for their actions.

That's what happens when you normalize lynching. Shitty people will happily use it as a weapon for injustice.

<comment><USER23> "credible enough to them" is a meaningless phrase which elides the crucial distinction at hand. The people of Skidmore were objectively justified in feeling physically threatened by McElroy. Lynch mobs were not.

If you want to argue a slippery slope exists (and I think that may indeed be the case), blurring these very different motives together does not bolster your case. I mean, the town of Skidmore _didn 't_ go on to exact this kind of vigilante justice on anyone else, did it?

<comment><USER7> Exactly. Hindsight is 20-20 and with hindsight we pretty much agree this guy got what he had coming to him (even if the proper legal procedures weren't followed) whereas the people who got lynched for racial reasons didn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Criminal, the podcast, did an episode about the killing of Ken McElroy. [0]

An episode that stuck in my head.

[https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-66-bully-5-5-2017/](https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-66-bully-5-5-2017/)

</comment><comment><USER25> > Britt Small, in fact, says that the only mistake made during the entire > ordeal was not killing Trena too

Wait, what did Trena do to also be a potential target here? Just guilt by association? Or was she actually actively participating in the criminal acts (and not being coerced to do so, as I imagine one might be before/while/after marrying a violent criminal at age 12)?

The article couldn't, you know, delve into this a bit more?

<comment><USER26> I remember watching some news program about the event (maybe the 60 minutes piece mentioned in the article). I believe they interviewed Trena and she expressed anger that her husband was murdered and nobody would testify or try to bring the murderer(s) to justice.

My guess is that Small doesn't like that she caused waves after the murder. As opposed to just going along with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Would have liked to have heard more detail about why the local justice system was unable or unwilling to restrain McElroy.

The whole situation raises some interesting parallels to wealthy & powerful malefactors routinely skating past legal consequences in our federal courts system.

</comment><comment><USER27> I highly recommend the book In Broad Daylight, which the TV movie was based on. Surprised they didn't mention this in the article.

<comment><USER28> It's there:

> ...an incident that became so notorious they even made a TV movie about it > (1991's In Broad Daylight, starring Brian Dennehy, Cloris Leachman, Marcia > Gay Harden and Chris Cooper)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is still going on in Alaska, many remote areas have some bullies getting away due to no police. I'm sure some end up missing too, but there is a big lack of funding for state marshals to deal with the problems.

<comment><USER30> I am not saying you are wrong, however this comment would be a lot more useful/interesting if you mentioned some sources.

<comment><USER31> Not parent, but this well-researched and gripping anecdote [1] may offer a helpful picture of American places where the law is not so dependable.

[1] [https://magazine.atavist.com/outlaw-country-klamath- county-o...](https://magazine.atavist.com/outlaw-country-klamath-county- oregon-guns-murder)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A similar incident from 2005: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_at_W%C5%82odowo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_at_W%C5%82odowo)

</comment><comment><USER33> One could see this as a man being tried by a jury of his peers.

</comment><comment><USER34> Peter Matthiessen's book "Killing Mr. Watson" centers on a similar story in south Florida.

</comment><comment><USER35> OBVIOUSLY this vigilante justice was not planned over the entire time span of McElroy's rein of terror, or it would have happened long before. So there is no intrinsic aspect of flash-mob vigilantism we should be concerned about.

OBVIOUSLY no one here is in a position to exonerate any of the specific crimes McElroy committed.

Sounds like a nice place to live, but if you were to be drawn there because of this they probably wouldn't want you living there. That is the attitude of people who feel resentful that 'doing what needs to be done' has drawn more national attention than the collected crimes of McElroy ever did.

</comment><comment><USER36> This kind of thing has been happening since humans roamed the plains of Africa. A smallish group of humans can only take so much anti-social behaviour before a permanent solution is required. Now, with larger groupings of towns and cities, society can afford to be somewhat more merciful.

</comment><comment><USER37> [https://www.amc.com/shows/no-one-saw-a-thing/full- episodes/s...](https://www.amc.com/shows/no-one-saw-a-thing/full- episodes/season-01/episode-01/the-killing-of-ken-rex-mcelroy)

</comment><comment><USER38> Midwesterner here: Skidmore, MO, is not in The Midwest. It is on The Prairie. Which is the easternmost part of The West.

The Midwest starts west of the the line between Fort Duquesne in Pittsburgh to the southwest corner of New York. It is north of the Ohio River, and east of the Mississippi River. St. Paul is Midwest. Minneapolis is Prairie.

St. Louis is "the Gateway to the West", not "the Gateway to More of the Midwest".

<comment><USER39> Midwesterner here: grew up in or near Kirksville, MO, about 165 miles east of Skidmore. I hereby swear or affirm that Skidmore is in the Midwest, geographically and culturally, although northern Missouri/southern Iowa have their own version of "midwest". That part of the world is definitely not plains geographically or biologically: it's oak/hickory forest growing on dissected glacial till. You don't get to "plains" geographically until you're well into Kansas at that latitude, and even then, Kansas and Nebraska are culturally midwestern, despite their pretensions to cowboy.

<comment><USER38> You might say "pop" instead of "soda", but you will never escape your Louisiana history. No _true_ Midwesterner grows their corn and soybeans anywhere west of the river.

It's not our fault that _true_ Midwestern culture is so rich and interesting that the folk of the Great Plains were compelled to emulate it. But to be fair, you are the second-best completely-distinct-and-separate cultural region in the US, so don't feel too bad about it.

~

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

"The Midwest" is poorly-defined. Most polls conclude that Midwesterners believe that the Midwest is at least their state and neighboring states, and non-Midwesterners have basically no idea where it starts or ends.

The census region more or less covers the Northwest Territories plus that part of the Louisiana Purchase that became Missouri Territory. Largely settled by Germans and Scandinavians, and mostly free states (except Missouri itself).

I refer to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Cultu...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States#Cultural_overlap) for further info on how the definition of "Midwest" differs depending on what part of the Midwest you're from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> To be clear, community murders like this happened all the time in US history. The thing that makes this special is that the man killed was white and actually guilty of crimes.

<comment><USER41> 100% true. This is the history of lynching in America. Community murders where nobody saw a thing, and the justification was always that the murdered person was a degenerate who would not receive what the town thinks would be adequate punishment under the law.

<comment><USER42> Great reading on the culture that gave rise to lynching:

[https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-masters-actually-lynch- slave...](https://www.quora.com/Did-slave-masters-actually-lynch-slaves- themselves-or-did-they-have-authorities-do-it/answer/Erik-Painter)

<comment><USER43> Grotesque but the fact is that these public square hangings were done since medieval times and probably earlier. From the Salem witch trials to the San Francisco vigilantes, it happened in many town squares, and it was believed to be justified: [https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah- lynching/2/](https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-lynching/2/)

<comment><USER42> These weren't all that long ago. Someone claimed that there are people walking around today that went to one of these events. I couldn't corroborate that claim but we're talking less than a hundred years ago. While the Middle ages were some 5-900 years ago.

Also what makes these public killings so notable is the fact that it was a deliberate effort of an entire society to instill fear into a minority. That you don't see very often. There wasn't even an attempt at justice, they didn't even try to make it seem like these people weren't being killed just because of the color of their skin.

<comment><USER5> > Also what makes these public killings so notable is the fact that it was a > deliberate effort of an entire society to instill fear into a minority. That > you don't see very often.

I _prefer_ the version of history suggested by the last sentence, but unfortunately cannot _accept_ it was accurate.

Looking around the world, I see it frequently and with broad geographic distribution. (Though it's not the whole society, just the dominant group, both in the immediate example and the general case across time and space.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Over the long timespans of human evolution I'm willing to bet that this is a significant selective pressure.. bullies probably just disappeared or were kicked out of the community to fend for themselves

<comment><USER45> He had 14 children, though - that doesn't seem like a failure to pass along his genes.

<comment><USER46> Well, its probably easy to have kids with a large number of women if you actively include 'poor choices' relative to your social standing. Seemingly most people want to move up or at least stay equal in social ladders when it comes to the choice of a mate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> If the man were innocent and the town's people ganged up on him, Salem style, would the evidence look different?

<comment><USER48> > For more than two decades, McElroy was suspected of being involved in theft > of grain, gasoline, alcohol, antiques, and livestock, but he avoided > conviction when charges were brought against him 21 times—often after > witnesses refused to testify because he allegedly intimidated them, > frequently by following his targets or parking outside their homes and > watching them.

> McElroy began stalking the Bowenkamp family, and eventually threatened Bo > Bowenkamp in the back of his store with a shotgun in hand. In the ensuing > confrontation, McElroy shot Bowenkamp in the neck; Bowenkamp survived, and > McElroy was arrested and charged with attempted murder. McElroy was > convicted at trial of assault, but freed on bail pending his appeal. > Immediately after being released at a post-trial hearing, McElroy went to > the D&G Tavern, a local bar, with an M1 Garand rifle with a bayonet > attached, and made graphic threats about what he would do to Mr. Bowenkamp.

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

Does an innocent person look like this? You tell me.

<comment><USER47> Oh, I don't think he's innocent, but all information about this is post facto. All those sources exist _after_ he was killed.

I'm less conspiracy theory about this, and more just remarking (pointlessly, I suppose) how information deteriorates over time. Some may even be true, but used as a tool to build the rest around.

<comment><USER49> He was convicted of attempted murder while he was very well alive. He was also charged for many other crimes for two decades, the charges just never stuck because he intimidated the witnesses. Plenty of information about his deeds was recorded prior to his killing.

<comment><USER47> Whoops, I goofed. This stuff is pretty well documented actually. I look like a conspiracy theorist now.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


PCA and SVD - <AUTHOR> https://waynemystir.github.io/blog/2018/11/29/pca-svd-1 <comment><USER2> Maybe add an abstract and more schematic illustrations as it became very wordy after you've dealt with basic PCA and SVD.</comment>


Ask HN: Which books are you reading in 2017? - <AUTHOR> I am planning to go on an academic holiday and wanted to see which interesting books have you read this year or are planning to read. <comment><USER2> I'll never understand HN's love for self help books. I can barely stand to read more than a chapter of them, so my list won't be that useful.

I'm halfway through Barbara Tuchman's Bible and Sword - an exploration of the relationship between England and Israel/Palestine from the middle ages to 20th century. Tuchman isn't the most accurate person but she's a great writer and gets the general idea across very well.

</comment><comment><USER3> Among other books, I read this year Give and Take [0], Flow and Deep Work [1]. I tend to summarize the books I enjoyed the most, to internalize them myself, but also to give others access to it. Maybe you find them interesting (if you haven't already read them). My whole reading list can be found on Goodreads [2] for more inspiration :)

\- [0] [https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-give-and- take/](https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-give-and-take/)

\- [1] [https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-deep-work- flow/](https://www.robinwieruch.de/lessons-learned-deep-work-flow/)

\- [2] [https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/63553187-robin- wieruch...](https://www.goodreads.com/review/list/63553187-robin- wieruch?shelf=read)

</comment><comment><USER4> I mostly started reading alot since March 2017 up to now. I'm pretty sure I'm forgetting alot but, this is what I've been reading or have read so far:

Eternal Golden Braid

Shoe Dog

Creativity Inc

High Output Management

Game of Thrones Book 1,2,3

Never Split The Difference

Presuasion

Like Switch

Mans Search For Meaning

The Hard Things about Hard Things

Norse Mythology

Ted Talks

How To Talk to Anyone

How to win friends and influence people

Mckinsey Mind

Mckinsey Edge

Influence

Extreme Ownership

Everything Store

Inner Game of Tennis

Book of Joy

Phoenix Project

The Goal

Hooked

How Google Works

<comment><USER5> Terrific list....have read most of these myself. Mans Search for Meaning should be at the top of everyone's reading list.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My June/July/Aug booklist:

       - How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas Foster
       - The Power of Habit by Charles Duhigg
       - The Story of the Human Body by Daniel Lieberman
       - The Virgin Suicides by Jeffrey Eugenides
       - Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston
       - Coders at Work by Peter Seibel
       - Drive  by Daniel Pink
       - American Gods by Neil Gaiman

</comment><comment><USER7> We are legion (We are bob): [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LWAESYQ/ref=series_rw_d...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LWAESYQ/ref=series_rw_dp_sw)

An awesome sci-fi story about a software developer who wakes up in the 22nd as a computer program

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm reading "Magic Realized", poetry on life and love and the joys and (occasionally) horrors thereof. [https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Realized-Other- Poems-Spirit/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Magic-Realized-Other-Poems- Spirit/dp/1936449463) (My Amazon review: [https://www.amazon.com/review/R2RYIB3JA891TW/ref=cm_cr_rdp_p...](https://www.amazon.com/review/R2RYIB3JA891TW/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B072Q5V2MN))

</comment><comment><USER9> I am currently reading the last edition of Mike Covel "Trend Following"

Trend Following, 5th Edition: How to Make a Fortune in Bull, Bear and Black Swan Markets

[https://www.amazon.com/Trend-Following-5th-Fortune- Markets/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Trend-Following-5th-Fortune- Markets/dp/1119371872/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1499692390&sr=1-1)

</comment><comment><USER10> So far I have read:

\- Left of Bang.

\- The Obstacle is the way.

\- The Daily Stoic.

\- High-Output Management.

\- The Effective Engineer.

\- Managing Humans.

\- Introducing Go.

Currently going through "Designing Data Intensive Applications" and some other data-related free ebooks from O'Reilly.

Up next on my list for the rest of the year:

\- Hadoop: The Definitive Guide.

\- The Manager's Path.

\- Anti-Fragile.

\- A Guide to the Good Life.

\- The Denial of Death.

\- Man's Search for Meaning.

EDIT: list formatting.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here are all the books I'm currently reading: [https://booknshelf.com/@tigran/shelves/currently- reading](https://booknshelf.com/@tigran/shelves/currently-reading)

</comment><comment><USER12> The expanse, Abaddon's Gate

</comment><comment><USER13> Waiting for Jason Calacanis's "Angel" to come out later this month.

</comment><comment><USER14> My current list:

\- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind

\- The Silk Roads: A New History of the World

\- The Autobiography of Malcolm X</comment>


Trump's budget calls for seismic disruption in medical and science research - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trumps-budget-would-slash-scientific-and-medical-research/2017/03/15/d3261f98-0998-11e7-a15f-a58d4a988474_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_b-trumpscience-12am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.f1b0a60b516a <comment><USER2> If this goes through congress - yikes, I am hoping for congress to do the right thing here and push back - it will have far-reaching impacts on science and technology in this country. One of the reasons so much innovation is centered in the US is the funding that drives science and technology at universities and major research labs. Does being "great again" mean less investment in science and technology?</comment>


Smokers consume same amount of cigarettes regardless of nicotine levels - <AUTHOR> http://www.newseveryday.com/articles/592/20140822/smokers-consume-same-amount-of-cigarettes-regardless-of-nicotine-levels.htm <comment><USER2> That's not what I observed when I was a smoker... Switching to Ultra-lights, I would smoke more.

I think smokers are all different... or at least there are different behaviors among smokers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Except no nicotine -- if that were true, quitting would be easy.</comment>


Ask HN: would anyone be interested in a better Sparrow for mac? - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
My name is Waseem, I built www.inbox2.com a couple of years ago. I have not released any updates to that client since 1.5 years. I still have a new download every 5 minutes and people are still loving it (which astonishes me).
I ended up switching all my stuff to Macs and iPads so I cant use my neat Windows client myself, let alone work on it.
I ended up open sourcing the client (see the announcement and discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3083935), hoping someone else would pick up development but unfortunately no-one did (even with its 54 forks on GitHub).
I am currently using Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/) but we all know what happened to that and new updates to the client might be out of the question.
So I was just thinking about whether to do a Mac version of the Inbox2 client (there is a host of ideas that I have never implemented). If I did a kickstarter (or used any of the other funding platforms out there), would you help fund this thing?
I think it would be about a 100K project which is my time + hiring a designer + some extra development capacity for about 12-16 months (building these things takes really really long).
I dont want to make any money off this as I have been down that road before and its hard to turn this into a sustainable business and also most importantly it kills innovation. I want to build a client that actually helps you to get shit done and is not just another better looking mail.app clone and makes some cash. This thing will be open-source from the start.
I havent yet decided wether I will do it or not, that kind of depends on the reactions I get from my target audience, which is you HN ;-)
So what do you think? <comment><USER2> I still use Sparrow as well and love it. So yes, if a similar solution was created and supported then I'd be all over it. Especially if it had support for Rapportive! :)

</comment><comment><USER3> I still use Sparrow and I love it. If you can create something simple, intuitive, and minimalist then I'd be interested to hear more.

</comment><comment><USER4> What would you do better than Sparrow?

<comment><AUTHOR> For starters simple integration with your social feed, just for quick scanning.

Then there are all these next-gen features: \- In Inbox2 I built something Rapportive like but used your social connections (mind you that was almost 3 years ago), that can defnately be improved with services such as FullContact now adays

\- I did a priority inbox type of thing that IMO still performs better then Google priority inbox, I never released it tho and its not part of the open source codebase as well. The difference was that it did ranking based on the social relationship you had with a person (so even counting things like FB messages, tweets, etc).

\- Best of all is Inbox2's search feature tho, its people centric. The idea is that generally you might not be able to find back an email based on keywords but you almost always know the person or the company that sent you the email. Inbox2 alsready has the first iteration of this feature, search doesnt start at fulltext but al the person that sent you the email. Sparrow has something kind of where you can search on emails but the way I built it was on aggregated profiles of people (so even if you had 4 email addresses and 1 facebook profile it would still know it was you).

Then there are also all these next-gen features around improving email productivity. Just an example:

\- Marking an email that I send as a task. We often send emails witch are like "hey can you do this for me", then we are at the mercy of the other end actually actually sending us a "done" reply. yes I know about asana and all these other things but fact of the matter is that most tas assignment STILL happens in email.

My client would allow you to mark an email as a task, the receiving end woud actually see a task popup and our email clients would be able to communicate with each other around the status of that task.

Oh and also check out the built in GTD functinality, where you have built in buttons for "todo", "read later" and "maybe someday" type of things.

<comment><USER5> like sparrow. Minimalist not to much distraction. Perfect...</comment></comment></comment>


OSIRIS-REx spacecraft found water on its target asteroid - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/10/osiris-rex-found-water-on-asteroid/ <comment><USER2> This is a huge step forward into the solar system. Finding water in a nearby shallow gravity well will greatly advance our ability to further explore the solar system and make use of its abundant resources.</comment>


Why Apple may be losing its edge - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57555744/why-apple-may-be-losing-its-edge/

<comment><USER2> Incredible blogspam, the original source (not linked from the CBS News article is [http://allthingsd.com/20121126/iphone-5-costs-may-be- eating-...](http://allthingsd.com/20121126/iphone-5-costs-may-be-eating- apples-gross-margins/)). Then they spun the story into something else with a terrible editorialized headline ("losing its edge" actually means "lower gross margins per phone").

There's probably some useful discussion to be had whether Apple is really "losing its edge" in regards to making disruptive devices though. This is not that article.

<comment><USER3> > _There's probably some useful discussion to be had whether Apple is really > "losing its edge" in regards to making disruptive devices though._

Less than two years after they introduced their last disruptive device (the iPad)?

What "disruptive devices" has Apple's competition released during last 10 years exactly? Blackberry could be thought of as one. Any other?

(And one could argue that the high-dpi laptop, introduced less than a year ago, is also another disruptive device in the PC industry -- as was the Air that created the whole ultraportable thing and is still unsurpassed).

<comment><USER4> There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting.

I think the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were fairly obvious choices (although I was surprised that it was Apple that released the iPod, I had expected a killer device from one of the then traditional consumer electronics companies). Apple has already addressed all of my personal pain points, although I suppose they could eventually get AppleTV right I don't think it will be disruptive at anywhere near the scale that the iPhone was.

<comment><USER3> > _There's a problem if your technical edge is disruptive devices. In order to > maintain that edge you have to keep disrupting._

True, but why "maintain that edge"? Apple was doing just fine with just the Mac like pre iPod. And then it did phenomenal after the iPod, iPhone, iPad.

Even just with those, it's a tens of billions dollar business they can continue milking.

It's not like "disruptive" is what marks Apple. The iPhone 5 is not disruptive anymore, but it sells like hot cakes.

Incremental improvement and more especially high class machines (design, build and software integration) is what marks Apple. They can milk that for decades.

<comment><USER4> The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is generally priced for growth (although that has been changing lately). In the meantime they have have Android (and eventually probably MS) swallowing their market from the low end up.

To me it seems very similar to what happened with the desktop market.

<comment><USER3> > _The edge matters for investors. Yes, Apple can continue to trundle along > making about what it does now for a good long while, but their stock is > generally priced for growth_

That's true, but I don't care much for investors. I was happy with Apple in 2002-3, when it was 1/50 today's size, because it had the product I wanted: a bloody usable Unix that can run proprietary apps, and good hi-end laptops.

I wish companies were less relied in investors and the stock market and more on their actual production and revenues. Then you wouldn't have some social BS selling for several billion dollars only to die out a couple of years later...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Every blogger wants to be the person who "calls" a company peaking/declining/etc. I think the zeitgeist has been that apple is going to decline ever since Steve Jobs passing. While he certainly curated apples products well, all the smart people who created them are still around.(mostly anyway)

Everything is shifting to mobile, so its not a blue ocean anymore. Its going to be increasingly competitive and harder to hit homeruns with every product. Im happy to see at least 2 really competitive platforms to iOS out there. Consumers win here, and all three platforms benefit from having to stay competitive.

</comment><comment><USER6> The iPhone is a great product, but it is no longer the best product for a significant portion of the market. This is due to the changes in demographics as the smartphone market has expanded and competition from sophisticated competitors with deep pockets, the desire to out innovate the market leader, and experience in commoditized markets.

Apple is fighting increasingly defensive campaigns because they are increasingly confronting the same sorts of challenges RIM experienced from them a few years ago.

</comment><comment><USER7> That only tells me they are not as profitable, not that they've lost their edge. No real insight here I'm afraid.

<comment><USER8> I agree there isn't any real insight. I've often wondered, however, how a (relatively) lower profit margin would affect Apple. They seem to be banking the profits at this point. So, would the net effect just be $10B less in the bank, or would it actually change their operation?

And, if that change _would_ effect their edge on innovation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Linkbait aside, if Apple's gross margin is decreasing, which it looks like it is, its most likely because of the iPad which carries a lower profit margin. So when iPad sales become a larger portion of total sales, gross margin goes down while total profits still go up.

<comment><USER4> I think that the rise of Android is enabling carriers to push back a lot harder on the subsidies too. From their point of view, there's good demand across the board for Android phones and they can sell them with better profit, which would probably make them more inclined to negotiate harder with Apple.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the carriers threatens to skip the next iPhone release.

<comment><USER10> The carriers make way more money off iPhone customers so not likely. Also, in general, no-one switches carriers to get random android devices. They will leave carriers to get iPhones.

As android increases share of the phone market (vs. smartphone market, right?) the percentage of mobile web traffic from android has, if anything, dropped. This suggests android is winning big in the "I don't care what phone I get" market. This isn't the fat juicy part of the market.

<comment><USER4> They USED to make way more money. I don't know that that is still true, based on gripes from sales people about commissions I'm pretty sure it's no longer true. I do know that carriers are pushing Android (and even Windows) phones a lot harder than they were a year ago.

<comment><USER10> Sales people's commissions tend to be inversely related to customer demand. iPhone demand outstrips supply to incentivizing salespeople to sell iPhones makes no sense.

Think the numbers have dramatically changed since August? [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/08/10/can-anyone- he...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ycharts/2012/08/10/can-anyone-help-these- poor-wireless-carriers-break-their-addiction-to-iphones/)

<comment><USER4> As far as I can tell, those charts don't break down the usage between iPhone and others. Doesn't matter though as your first point trumps it.

But good point about the reverse commissions arrow. I'll have to go check what current commissions are on the iPhones vs previously.

<comment><USER10> Agreed about the figures as they can only be inferred. asymco has done some analyses along these lines in the past but I couldn't find one in a hurry (and it might not have been recent). Other indirect measures do not show android is doing better as a "smart" phone (I.e. generator of demand for expensive cellular plans).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The stupdily sharp edge on my Macbook Pro says otherwise.

Now where's my angle grinder...</comment>


Suspected Campaign from Russia on Reddit - <AUTHOR> https://reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/e74nml/suspected_campaign_from_russia_on_reddit/ <comment><USER2> in 2012, I can remember seeing so many bot accounts on Reddit helping Obama. No investigations and nobody cared. It was business as usual.

It's scary to think that if a Democrat is in power again, most of these investigations and interest in Russia will stop...because people don't really care if it helps their candidate win.</comment>


Former GM exec, Bob Lutz: Fire the MBAs and let the engineers run the show - <AUTHOR> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2081930,00.html <comment><USER2> The notion of firing the MBAs overlaps substantially with my thinking, except I don't think there should be any MBAs in the first place.

[http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/Shut-Down-the- Business-...](http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/Shut-Down-the-Business- Schools)

Also, anyone who thinks the FedEx network is "ultra-efficient" (as the article claims) hasn't shipped anything FedEx lately. More than ten years ago, FedEx bought RPS for FedEx Ground but never bothered integrating any of the systems. There are still two types of tracking numbers. Shipping something overnight from San Francisco to Los Angeles via FedEx Express routes the package through Nashville, while it could be sent just as quickly over FedEx Ground at lower cost and without using jet fuel. Also, their web site is just about the biggest piece of junk Oracle has ever produced. When you deal with their executive support team, as I unfortunately have, they give you FedEx coupons that the FedEx Office (formerly Kinko's) cashiers have absolutely no idea how to scan. I think what they need is engineers.

<comment><USER3> I think that MBAs should prove their worth by running their own businesses. The tricky situation is that they claim to be able to run any business using the same rules, but most of them choose to run other people's business instead of their own.

If MBAs were good. They would make their own businesses and win. Is it the case or not?

<comment><USER4> A lot of MBAs graduate and get into management consulting--basically they get paid to make bullshit Powerpoint decks and provide expert guidance in torpedoing their clients. In the consulting world, everyone agrees senior- level consultants (with an MBA) who are hired for C-level positions will run the company into the ground.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> At the risk of sounding overly snarky, I don't think that GM's leadership is in any position to make recommendations on how to run a car company.

And to get to his point, it's fluff. Which engineers, exactly, will run the show? The ones with the marketing skills, the social influence, and business knowledge to get the job done. I wonder if he knows that about 1/3 of MBA's _are_ engineers.

<comment><USER6> _At the risk of sounding overly snarky, I don't think that GM's leadership is in any position to make recommendations on how to run a car company_

Despite the general level of incompetence among GM's leadership there were a few smart people there. Lutz was one of them. He has a strong track record of developing successful products and has never been shy about criticizing his bosses.

 _And to get to his point, it's fluff_

It's not fluff. Perhaps this synopsis of his book didn't provide sufficient detail, but his point is broadly acknowledged as one of the major problems with the US auto industry. If you look at a US made car from the early 2000's, the level of cost optimization at the expense of all other factors is embarrassing. It's indisputable that as MBAs have gained prominence in the US auto industry, the products have become less compelling. Lutz is simply advocating that the people who love the product be the ones who have the final say.

(Disclosure: I'm an automotive engineer)

<comment><USER7> "It's indisputable that as MBAs have gained prominence in the US auto industry, the products have become less compelling."

While I don't entirely disagree with your premise. Correlation does not equal causation.

<http://farm1.static.flickr.com/54/139092366_ce5b410228_o.jpg>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Logically, they should fire the engineers and let lobbyists run the show. GM is in the business of government rent collecting, not cars.

<comment><USER9> Bingo. We have a winner, folks. Once an organization is forced into, or drifts into that line of work, it's like a dog that's tasted human blood....

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> _The only time Apple ever lost the plot was when it put the M.B.A.s in charge._

Tim Cook runs Apple's operations, is widely credited as a supply chain genius, and has been acting CEO of the company since Jobs started his latest medical leave. He received an MBA from Duke.

<comment><USER11> Operations might be a good place for someone with certain business talents. But also, apple has lately received a lot of flack for their off-shoring and the types of workers and working conditions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Our company has been in business for 20+ years and our main policy is to never hire any MBAs. Has worked out great so far.

</comment><comment><USER13> A counter argument to this was Carlos Ghosn's experience with Nissan. He said that one of Nissan's problems was engineers making cars for engineers, but that people did not want to buy.

In reality creating, marketing and being successful with a product requires diverse perspectives.

I think engineers beating up on MBA's is no different from MBA's beating up on "propellerheads." It's counter productive.

And just because you have an MBA, should you then be typecast by engineers? Why does having an MBA reduce someone's potential to be a passionate product person, or to have productive relationships with the makers?

<comment><USER14> The problem is that the old business school courses taught a lot of flawed stuff, including stuff from Jack Welch like cutting costs by treating engineers etc as disposable.

<comment><USER13> That's a good point, and poor cost accounting practices..

I have a friend (an engineer) who is doing his MBA right now. At his school he said there is a big focus on ethics and ethical behaviour. Based on what I've witnessed in business, I wish some of that was maintained once people entered the work world!

<comment><USER15> In high school there is a big focus on abstinence and staying away from alcohol, for much the same reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _In the first half of the 20th century, industrial giants like Ford, General Electric, AT &T and many others were extremely consumer-focused_

I couldn't really read any more of the article after seeing this outright lie. In the first half of the 20th century, At&T wouldn't even let you plug in a third party _telephone_. How is that customer focused in any way?

<comment><USER17> It's customer focused because it allowed them to enforce _strict_ standards[1] with regard to how devices on the telephone network behaves, which in turn let them provide high quality telephone service to a huge number of people. The Bell telephone network of the first half of the 20th century was a marvel by the standards of the day.

Anyway, there honestly wasn't much of a problem with doing things that way from most customers' point of view: Bell owned the telephone equipment, but that was a good thing because it was expensive stuff, and they would maintain it for you. Moreover, there just wasn't much opportunity for differentiation in CPEs (customer premise equipment, the stuff in your house): battery technology wasn't at the point where wireless handsets made sense, commodity answering machines were a long way off, et cetera. In total, in terms of Bell's ability to roll out the network quickly, it was probably a net win with regard to the technology that they kept the whole thing closed.

Now, obviously it also gave them the opportunity to act pretty anti- competitively, and obviously that was not good for customers. But it's often been observed that huge infrastructure buildouts are much more efficiently done under central control, and given the choice between the Federal government doing it and Ma Bell doing it, I'll take the latter.

[1] I've read and implemented most of the Bellcore standards; in the past I worked on a team doing integrated telephone line control circuits (SLICs), and if you think fifteen years of web standards turns into a rats nest, try implementing 100 years of standards plus working around well-known cases that break those standards but are too widespread to ignore. The telephony equivalent of IE6 is the Casio Phonemate answering machine. That single piece of equipment is, I shit you not, singlehandedly responsible for about a 10% bloat in the cost of telephony equipment because it sold so many units and yet so badly breaks the ringing standard.

<comment><USER14> You bringing up IE6 made me wonder whether the "legacy" MBA is going to become the next IE6.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> GM didn't fail because of product, that failed because of lack of management talent. GM had vastly higher costs than it competitors due to a heavily unionized workforce, long term dealership contracts that were losing them money, and a huge pension deficit (roughly $1500 from every GM car sold goes to paying pensions). It didn't matter how great their products were, they'd never be able to compete with new or foreign car manufacturers.

<comment><USER19> In the past decade, product really seemed to matter. I knew a few Saturn owners who loved the car, but the sedans that were being sold in the last five years of Saturn's life did not appeal to them, and that shows in the sales figures too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Has anyone considered that there just might be room for more than one particular set of talents inside a company?

</comment><comment><USER21> from his wikipage it seems that he isn't an engineer, he is a professional manager and salesman. If he were following his own advice, he wouldn't had been running the show himself in the first place. Of course, as a result nobody would care today what some old man going by the name of Bob Lutz is thinking.

</comment><comment><USER22> MBAs have their place: big multi-nationals in middle and upper middle management. Not at the top, not in tech and not in startups.

<comment><USER23> Pointless generalization. Engineers have their place: as individual contributors without customer facing roles. Not at the top or any management position.

<comment><USER24> "customer facing roles" and "management positions" sound like the shitty corporate bureaucracies which engineers want to stay from.

The corporate culture of exploiting engineers will soon come to an end.

<comment><USER25> > The corporate culture of exploiting engineers will soon come to an end.

That seems exceedingly unlikely. Care to elaborate?

<comment><USER26> corporations will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

if you believe the revolution is coming, that statement is therefore straightforward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "The company off Highway 101 that best illustrates this point is, of course, Apple."

There's three numbers the author got wrong.

</comment><comment><USER28> To state the obvious, many MBA's also have engineering degrees. What should be done with these guys?

<comment><USER29> Make them the CEO? An engineering undergrad degree is the most prevalent degree among CEOs (at least with a sample of S&P 500 companies).

[http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net/2007/06/05/sp-500-ceos...](http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net/2007/06/05/sp-500-ceos- again-engineering-graduates-lead/)

I think there is a problem in business school focus on short-term optimization. There's data showing the while businesses have fatter profit margins than ever, total profit growth has been much weaker than in past decades. Hmm I think I saw that data in a Umair Haique presentation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I would say that especially in fast-moving companies, like in the "Web" space (generalize as you see fit), MBAs have no role. But they do have a role in established companies (like Intel, IBM, etc.) where "processes" have to be followed and nobody wants to rock the boat.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have covered this 'MBA - good or bad' quite often in the past. <http://thesuccessmanual.bighow.com>

</comment><comment><USER32> What are the odds that this happens over the next decade? I'm only asking because I'm not sure where those engineers are going to come from unless we fix immigration laws.

<comment><USER33> Engineers aren't making doctor or lawyer salaries yet, so what makes you think we don't have enough engineers?

<comment><USER34> For the past quarter-century, the American Medical Association and other industry groups have predicted a glut of doctors and worked to limit the number of new physicians. [1]

The problem is that the supply for doctors is artificially constrained leading to better salaries for them. If anything let's have more doctors so that the salaries are in parity with engineers.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association>

<comment><USER14> A bit of history: [http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/05/0...](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/05/03/how- the-american-medical-association-got-rich.aspx)

<comment><USER35> All due respect, you could've chosen a better source for your bit of history than an article that uses a book by the name "The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy" as its only source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It gets me so angry when I see complete idiots getting free corporate trips to europe to "present to customers" stuff that me and my fellow engineers built working late on weekdays,sacrificing our weekends...while these douchebags were at the bar talking to women about their exciting "work".

<comment><USER36> That's a sign that you should look around for an employment situation (another team, another company, or yourself) that values/needs your work.

<comment><USER24> m on it sir!!</comment></comment></comment>


A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks (1970) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zives/03f/cis550/codd.pdf <comment><USER2> This is the paper that first introduced the concept of the relational database.

You can read about the history of relational databases here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database#History)

It took almost a decade for the first commercial relational database to appear: "In 1974, IBM began developing System R, a research project to develop a prototype RDBMS. However, the first commercially available RDBMS was Oracle, released in 1979 by Relational Software, now Oracle Corporation."</comment>


Ask HN: Has front-page algorithm changed? - <AUTHOR>

Within the last few months I've noticed a distinct trend where I'm no longer deferring to the "new" link after I see that there is nothing on the front-page I find interesting.  The difference is so noticeable I'm inclined to ask if something significant has changed, such as an algorithm? <comment><AUTHOR> Several months ago: visit [https://news.ycombinator.com/news](https://news.ycombinator.com/news) , read list of titles, and don't click on any since none seem interesting. Defer to [https://news.ycombinator.com/newest](https://news.ycombinator.com/newest) because I regularly would find at least a few titles that interested me.

Now: visit [https://news.ycombinator.com/news](https://news.ycombinator.com/news) , and find several titles interesting, so I click on them and read them. Rarely do I find it necessary to visit [https://news.ycombinator.com/newest](https://news.ycombinator.com/newest) to get to titles I find interesting.

There is nothing specific about the experience that I can pinpoint other than that my interest in front-page articles is significantly higher now. My default go-to hacker news page is now /news and not /newest

<comment><USER2> Great, that's what I was hoping you meant, but wanted to be sure.

Yes, the algorithms have changed and so has the moderation. Our goal is to get the highest-quality stories from the /newest stream onto the front page. We've been attacking this problem from several different angles. I'll take your comment as evidence that it's working!

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely working for me. Not trying to put work on your team's plate, but if there were enough positive feedback like mine, an article about the discovery process and implementation of the changes would be an interesting read in and of itself. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I'm not sure I understand. Can you describe what you've noticed in a bit more detail?</comment>


Show HN: Create and Render 3D models in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/unixpickle/model3d <comment><AUTHOR> Author here!

This project includes a boatload of 3D models I've created in code and 3D printed over the past half year or so. It also includes a more recent ray tracer, which can produce some cool pictures like [1]. I've finally started stabilizing the API, and I'm excited to see what others do with it.

[1] [https://github.com/unixpickle/model3d/blob/master/examples/r...](https://github.com/unixpickle/model3d/blob/master/examples/renderings/tiffany/output_hd.png)</comment>


"Reverse location" search warrants identify all cellphones near a crime scene - <AUTHOR> https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/02/07/google-location-police-search-warrants <comment><USER2> > _He noted that even if it did target the wrong person, "it doesn't mean > they're going to get convicted or arrested, it just gives the detective a > look at who could be involved."_

...because no case has _ever_ been so righteously pursued, with such a vigorous degree of righteous indignation, that an innocent person was _ever_ thrown in prison[0], yeah?

This blasé attitude about sweeping-up data of innocent people is precisely how you arrive at it eventually being abused.

The eroding of rights isn't a flagrantly giant leap but tiny concessions that occur until it's too late to reverse what has essentially become the modus operandi.

[0] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19186759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19186759)

<comment><USER3> All criminal investigations start with group of innocent people. That's the only way to investigate.

Police collects data from security cameras, road cameras, credit card purchases, witnesses, and now from mobile service providers.

I agree that privacy erosion is real, but you argument was not convincing.

<comment><USER4> > All criminal investigations start with group of innocent people. That's the > only way to investigate.

Agreed. Also, all methods of gathering evidence from a group of innocent people are not legal. So let's take your examples one at a time:

> Police collects data from security cameras,

 _If_ a proprietor wishes to give the police footage. If not, they need a warrant in the U.S. to search them. If the police asked for a general warrant to go collect footage from everyone's security cameras in the same area it would probably have been denied, no?

> road cameras,

Agreed.

> credit card purchases,

Citation needed for local law enforcement getting a general warrant to run a credit card purchase history search "so expansive in time and geography that it had the potential to gather data on tens of thousands of Minnesotans."

> witnesses,

Again, citation needed where police can force tens of thousands of witnesses to answer questions and/or submit relevant data to the police.

> and now from mobile service providers.

Agreed.

> I agree that privacy erosion is real, but you argument was not convincing.

I agree it's not very persuasive, but neither is your counterargument. I'd like to have a deeper discussion about what triggers a violation of constitutional rights, and how to design technology that doesn't threaten to erode those protections.

<comment><USER5> If your train of logic basically reaches the conclusion "police cannot legally investigate crimes," I'm afraid I have some bad news about the facts underpinning your train of logic, because society will not conclude crimes can no longer be investigated.

<comment><USER4> That sentence was poorly worded.

But then if this least generous interpretation you chose represented my train of thought, one would have expected me to clearly argue that both "road cameras" and "mobile service providers" are illegal. Instead I replied with, "Agreed." Did you read down to those parts? If so I'm curious what you thought that could mean in a worldview where police cannot legally investigate crimes.

<comment><USER5> No, the error was mine. I zoned out on details because I misinterpreted your earlier sentence and assumed the remainder of the post was poor justification of my misunderstanding of your thesis.

<comment><USER6> This is surprisingly civil for an internet discussion forum. Kudos on having good manners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So essentially they asked for anonymised lists of phones (i.e. not even the actual numbers) that had been in the locations where the suspects had been, then cross-referenced these to find potential suspects, presumably finding some phones that exactly matched the reported movements of the suspects which they then made a second application to de-anonymise.

Do people honestly think this is disproportionate for investigating a home invasion? It seems like they have been quite privacy conscious in my opinion.

What would have been a better way to investigate this crime?

<comment><USER8>
      Do people honestly think this is disproportionate
      for investigating a home invasion?

I think the concern is not Google sharing this data once they have it. The concern is Google having it, in the first place (in personally identifiable form).

There's a lot of unclarity about which free and paid Google services and products are and aren't tracked. Who knows if their DNS resolver or their wifi-visibility-to-phone-location service or google-maps-used-without-logging- in would have come up in such a search warrant?

<comment><USER9> We know, because its outlined in their privacy policy that they store dns logs for 24 hours, and store the location data of devices which allow the location history feature, and provide data to governments who send a proper search warrant with reasonable cause.

<comment><USER10> My problem isn't so much that Google is storing location data _if people have agreed to allow it_. The semantics of agreeing to enable location history are arguable, but by default Google's location history feature is opt- _out_. I'd prefer it be not be that way, but that's a debate for another time.

What I do have a problem with is what this line from the article suggests:

>An Associated Press investigation last year revealed that even with these settings disabled, Google continued to collect and store users' location data.

Maybe I'm missing something from the TOS, but it seems to me that the opt-out process doesn't do what it describes; so what is it for?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Several years ago while living in London we had a visit from the police because they were able to access my partner's Oyster travel card registration details — she had provided her home address and I hadn't.

They were following up on an apparently minor assault and pulled tbe Oyster card details for everyone on a specific train.

Considering this is a city with ubiquitous CCTV, smart phones are just another data source.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _Considering this is a city with ubiquitous CCTV, smart phones are just > another data source._

London is quickly becoming one of the most dystopian cities in the world. I recently read a story [0] how London police are now face-scanning pedestrians and you are not allowed to cover up you face. If you protest this scanning, you're issued a £90 fine. You're basically treated like cattle.

[0] [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial- recogniti...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/facial-recognition- cameras-technology-london-trial-met-police-face-cover-man-fined-a8756936.html)

<comment><USER12> It's like the middle ages all over again. Citizens are a resource of the land and have no say in things except in the most extreme cases. The people in charge only care about the masses insofar as it relates to GDP growth (or whatever their metric of the day is) and is perfectly happy to subjugate them for that goal. God forbid we endure some economic instability while we deal with social issues. /s

I'm exaggerating but that sort of paternalistic authoritarianism seems to be more and more common among the politicians who's job it is to do things such as check the power of law enforcement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find it concerning that a judge, being presented with a textual description of four GPS coordinates would sign off on a warrant without simply asking... "okay, can you show me that on a map then?"

<comment><USER14> Do we know that the judge didn't simply plug the coordinates into some online mapping service to find out? It's not that hard...

<comment><USER13> It's alluded to in the article that judges aren't aware of the size of the geofences they're asked to sign off on, yeah.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This feels like a method of catching criminals that criminals will rapidly adapt to avoiding. "Don't carry the thing that broadcasts your location at all times while you're committing a home invasion" seems like a pretty obvious thing to avoid once a threat model is understood.

Regardless of the privacy issues, I don't anticipate this approach will stay useful in the long run.

<comment><USER15> Or better yet, pick pocket someone else's phone at another location. Commit a small but likely-to-be-reported crime near that location. Then carry their phone (and not yours) while committing a much more serious crime. They'll be tagged at both locations.

<comment><USER5> That breaks down fast when the pickpocketing victim reports their phone stolen. Police have retrieved stolen phones via the pickpocketing victim running "find my phone" on their property when they realize it is gone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In Germany the "Funkzellenabfrage" ("reverse location" request by cell) provided by the providers is used quite often. On the last Chaos Communication Congress there was a talk about this and the police uses it quite frequently.

The guesses were that on average every german phone is identified multiple times per year during this procedure. According to the Berlin statistics from 2017 there were nearly 450 requests resulting is 60 Million returned phones. Just compare that to Berlin's population...

<comment><USER17> "Funkzellenabfrage" \- That's a great word. Is there a word describing the ability of the German language to condense English phrases into a single word? :)

<comment><USER18> I think this would come under "agglutination"[1].

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

<comment><USER19> One of my favorites was "Vorlesungsverzeichnis" (lecture directory/course catalog).

Vorlesung = lecture

\- Lesung = a reading (like a book reading)/lesson

\- add "Vor" ("before" as in "in front of [a group]") and it becomes Lecture

Verzeichnis = directory

\- Zeichnis = symbol, signal, reference, sign

\- add "Ver" (hard to really explain what it does) and it becomes directory, index, register, list

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Bruley said detectives learned about the potential value of the practice and > how to write the warrant applications at an August training seminar held by > ZetX, an Arizona-based company that teaches police about cellphone > investigations, and sells software called TRAX that generates legal > documents and maps cellphone data to assist in analysis. The company holds > trainings all across the country.

> Material from the U.S. Department of Justice was presented, said Bruley, > including suggested language for use in these types of warrants.

I found this bit to be concerning as well. Create software that is more valuable with more warrants? "Train" officers on how to carefully write warrants to sneak them past overworked and less-technologically-sophisticated judges. Judicial deception as business development.

</comment><comment><USER21> Do they also give it to you so that you can use it in defense?

<comment><USER22> If it gets brought up by them during trial then they need to submit it during discovery

IANAL TINLA etc

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> How often does someone carrying out a planned crime carry a phone with them that is switched on, these days? Use of mobile phone data by the police has been standard practice since 2001, at least, and widely publicised.

<comment><USER24> > _How often does someone carrying out a planned crime carry a phone with them > that is switched on, these days?_

Almost all of the time.

<comment><USER23> Do you have a source for that?

I read somewhere how the police once solved a crime by analysing a cigarette butt left behind in a stolen car, but within a few years it was quite common for them to find that a stolen car had its ashtray filled with cigarette butts apparently taken from a public ashtray: even joyriders were clever enough to thus outwit forensics. So it would seem weird to me if armed robbers or professional burglars were carrying switched on phones, and most crimes are committed by people who commit multiple crimes, as I understand it, people who have plenty of experience of how the police and the courts operate.

In online discussions there are always people who claim that criminals are idiots, but I don't think that's accurate. I reckon that when it comes to crime, most criminals are in effect a lot more intelligent than I am with my elite university degree and so on. But in general, the older I get, the more aware I become of my own limitations and the less likely I am to dismiss anyone else as an idiot.

<comment><USER24> > _In online discussions there are always people who claim that criminals are > idiots, but I don 't think that's accurate. I reckon that when it comes to > crime, most criminals are in effect a lot more intelligent than I am with my > elite university degree and so on._

Career criminals (mob, drug cartels, etc) yes.

But people who commit random premeditated crimes are more often than not (judging from trial) in "Fargo" movie territory, and most smaller criminals (e.g. gang members, methheads, etc) are dumber than cotton.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So would this work the other way around? Leave your phone at home to prove you didn't go somewhere?

<comment><USER26> No, because people leave their phone at home all the time, but phones rarely go on trips without the owner.

<comment><USER27> So, send phone on trip to "prove" I wasn't somewhere else; put it in my kids backpack, fix it under my neighbours car.

<comment><USER28> So you put it in your kid's backpack and later the police will see that you spent your day in an elementary school. Does not seem like a very good alibi. The same is true for your neighbor, they will see that you spent your day in the parking lot of your neighbor's workplace, pretty suspicious.

<comment><USER29> So put in your wife's purse and say you spent the day with your wife (maybe spousal privelege would be useful there)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why did the police ask Google, and not the cellular operators? They know who was where to the level of positioning detail this requires.

<comment><USER31> Cell providers have information on what cell sites a mobile user has connected to and rough triangulations of the devices position.

Google has the exact GPS coordinates sent by the device itself, WiFi networks around it, and other location data.

<comment><USER32> But that's only if the GPS and wifi are activated on the phone. On my phone it's rarely the case.

<comment><USER31> I'm sure if there is no data from Google they get it from the cell provides, or they _also_ get it from cell providers, but Google is definitely going to have much richer and detailed information on an individual -- if they have it turned on.

I bet in 7/10 cases they do.

<comment><USER32> I don't disagree, I just wanted to point that Google might not have all info on all Android phones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Of course, Palantir is behind this. Someone should really start putting checks on Silicon Valley executives, especially Peter Thiel.

</comment><comment><USER34> In France that's how the former president got busted, he used his burner phone from a sparsely populated area.

<comment><USER32> Which president got busted for what?

<comment><USER34> Nicolas Sarkozy, for peddling influence. He was under investigation for getting money from Gaddafi when the police discovered he had another phone and was peddling influence with his lawyer as accomplice. He was trying to get informations on yet another enquiry against him by promising a judge he would use his influence to find him a higher job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> In the future I think that the idea that the government doesn't know where everyone is at all times will seem hard to imagine. (This is an IS statement not an OUGHT statement)

<comment><USER36> I'm actually kind of surprised that we don't all have permanent connected heart rate monitors already, in order that an ambulance can be called automatically should something happen.

<comment><USER37> [https://www.apple.com/apple-watch- series-4/health/](https://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-4/health/)

> With the new accelerometer and gyroscope, Apple Watch Series 4 can detect > that you've fallen. When an incident like this occurs, a hard fall alert is > delivered, and you can easily initiate a call to emergency services or > dismiss the alert. If you're unresponsive after 60 seconds, the emergency > call will be placed automatically and a message with your location will be > sent to your emergency contacts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Carrying a phone can make you a suspect. Not carrying a phone can make you a suspect.

Conclusion: You are a suspect.

I can't stand our culture's constant fear of people.

<comment><USER39> Sadly it ain't even exclusive to the US [0]

[0] [https://youtu.be/pdIA0jeW-24](https://youtu.be/pdIA0jeW-24)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Good to know Google could help find missing people (specially in disasters like missing planes and floods) but they just don't want to.

</comment><comment><USER41> >But by that point, police had already developed suspects without Google's help, based on vehicle descriptions and a confidential informant, they said in court filings.

Even with a lack of probable cause and massive data surveillance, good old fashion police work is what mattered.

</comment><comment> Paul-ish My concern with this sort of search is it could evolve to be used in a pretextual manner on small crimes.

"We have a reported flasher in this area, lets dump the cell phone record locations to find them. Oh looks, there are people with warrants that live in the area."

</comment><comment><USER42>
      "Most human beings can't interpret large strings of numbers
      and GPS coordinates without a map to illustrate them, and
      judges are no exception," said Nathan Freed Wessler, an
      attorney for the national American Civil Liberties Union.

One would hope though (clearly not, in this case) that a judge would be motivated to recognise when they were unable to interpret data like this that they were given, and request that it be provided in a clearer form that they could interpret.

If judges do not do that routinely then perhaps they should be required to do so

<comment><USER43> You would hope, but I bet it rarely happens. I've only been in a courtroom once and hope to never have to deal with that again. Its a real let down seeing how decisions are made so quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> this article convinced me to never use an Android phone nor Google maps ever again,

<comment><USER45> Because you think Apple (iOS, Maps) is not susceptible to warrants? Or is there some alternative which won't track you at all?

<comment><USER44> Apple doesn't track you by default (or when it does, it sends the data anonymously).

The Apps on ios might track you, and that's why I will not use Google maps again.

Your provider indeed tracks you, but at least for now, the accuracy is way below GPS. It is an issue and we should all be worried about slippery slope that it puts us all on.

<comment><USER46> >it sends the data anonymously

It shouldn't send anything at all if Apple was privacy minded. A warrant for all anonymous data from that location combined with a provider data from that cell and the user isn't anonymous anymore.

<comment><USER2> > _It shouldn 't send anything at all if Apple was privacy minded._

You can turn location services off at the device-level, which _stops_ everything from collecting your location data.

You can disallow apps, individually, from having access to your location data, as well; but that requires granual settings that most people aren't aware of and/or can't be arsed to go check every time that they install an app.

If I recall, correctly, apps using the Facebook SDK will still retrieve and push the last known location (yay for pointers...) but that's a problem with the app (and Facebook) moreso than it is with Apple.

So, this was just a long-winded and pointless way to say, you can prevent the data from being sent but, agreed, Apple could do slightly better in this area; however, I think it's a trade-off betwixt absolutely strict-privacy (e.g.: explicit deny until approved) and usability for them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Looking at the graph of reverse location searches over time (despite being an atrocious way to present the information) shows that there were a lot when it was first started and then quickly petered off. Is this an indication of its efficiency, pushback from Google, or denials from judges, I wonder?

Edit: Or they were just hot on it after the training and then their interest petered out.

<comment><USER47> Or they had a backlog of active cases where it was effective, and then it slowed to a steady-state of incoming cases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> >ordering Google to identify the locations of cellphones that had been near the crime scene in Eden Prairie

So, is the court pretending that Google isn't conducting a search that involves every cell phone Google has ever known about, or are they saying that's "Google's database" particularly describes the place to be searched?

</comment><comment><USER49> So the police have a list of 1000 people who were near a crime scene. Next step is to narrow it down - racial profiling, who has a criminal record... Young people are statistically more likely to commit violent crime, that's probably taken into account.

It might be wise to turn off location if you belong to any minority group.

</comment><comment><USER50> The interesting point would be if its repeat crime by the same person. Say that the same cell phone has been at several crime scenes during the crime period.

The combined data set/cluster of cell phones present at the time during crime scenes would be interesting for the police.

<comment><USER51> Or maybe casing places/people for something they want to do later. You know...pre-crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> question: can an appeals judge later throw out the warrant, if the judge applied the law "incorrectly"?

This technique makes sense _for cops_. For a lot of killings there's a lit of potential suspects so this weeds out all but a few.

<comment><USER53> It doesnt weed out anyone. You dont have to have your phone with you during a crime.

<comment><USER52> sure, but not everyone plans it perfectly. Plus, some are crimes of opportunity

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Next steps: Identify all cars near a crime scene.

<comment><USER55> Thanks to ALPR-laden vehicles constantly cruising around collecting this data for sleazy companies like Vigilant, this is probably already happening.

This will be made even easier as more car manufacturers start installing GPS, wifi and 4G as standard features so they can double dip by collecting data on the people who pay them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for a car.

<comment><USER56> This is already happening

We have a 2018 Nissan Rogue and Toyota RAV4 (as well as previously a 2015 RAV4). Every time you start the Rogue, it flashes a message saying that "Vehicle Data Transmission is ON" (or "OFF"), and that certain features (live traffic updates, etc.) may not work if data transmission is off. It is clearly stated that data is transmitted to "Nissan and its business partners."

And these days the trend is for devices to have non-owner-controllable software updates, so there's no guarantee that purchasing a car without this antifeature will keep you safe.

With the Rogue you at least can (apparently) make a choice on keeping your privacy or selling out in exchange for a better navigation system (still kind of sad that this needs to be done after spending >$30k on it...), but with the Toyotas there's no choice... they have some "HD Radio" technology (not related to audio quality) which is used for traffic and weather data, and there's no way to find out or control what it sends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Is anyone surprised that your cellphone location is used in a criminal investigation? Silly people. Just a few years ago they caught a killer like this around here. They asked the cell phone providers for location data, pruned the group with what they knew about the killer and took a DNA test of the remainder of the suspects. Easy.

</comment><comment><USER58> Note that most police in the US can locate any mobile number _in real-time,_ usually within 100m, without a warrant.

</comment><comment><USER59> Every time I see one of these I'm validated in my decision to switch to Apple.

<comment><USER60> Apple is the same. There are a lot of hidden regulations when you work on that scale.

<comment><USER60> btw, this is the same story even if you use a feature phone. Mobile operators are also sharing data and they have to keep all your data and activities for at least 6 months. Telecommunications is full of these regulations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This should surprise no one. I believe this has been known for a while now. This is one of the many reasons I have location services and GPS disabled on my Android and have all that tracking/history disabled in my Google account. GPS is only ever enabled precisely when I need it and only at those times (for navigation only).

I also disable my wifi as well for the same reason - Google is able to track your location based on that, and they absolutely do so. I've seen it documented elsewhere. Only if you really need wifi enabled should you use it.

Also, call me crazy but I'm pretty sure there is a legal requirement that mandates that warrants be very specific about who/what they apply to and what they expect to find in order to be justifiable.

<comment><USER62> I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Android really appears to be a different beast:

[https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users- locatio...](https://qz.com/1131515/google-collects-android-users-locations- even-when-location-services-are-disabled/)

<comment><USER61> Interesting. But Google has something that allows all users to see what has been collected on them. All of my stuff is empty - no website history, no location history, no youtube history, etc. All of it is empty and always has been when I check periodically.

So then the question becomes...is Quartz wrong or is Google simply lying about what they have on me? And FWIW, I checked prior to the Quartz article being written so it would have been before any actions were taken by Google to modify its practices.</comment></comment></comment>