Tensorflow and Deep Learning, Without a PhD, Martin Gorner, Google [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEciSlAClL8 <comment><USER2> Or you could just implement this (A submission from Google Brain to ICLR 2017):

 _In this paper, we use a recurrent network to generate the model descriptions of neural networks and train this RNN with reinforcement learning to maximize the expected accuracy of the generated architectures on a validation set. On the CIFAR-10 dataset, our method, starting from scratch, can design a novel network architecture that rivals the best human-invented architecture in terms of test set accuracy. Our CIFAR-10 model achieves a test error rate of 3.84, which is only 0.1 percent worse and 1.2x faster than the current state-of-the- art model. On the Penn Treebank dataset, our model can compose a novel recurrent cell that outperforms the widely-used LSTM cell, and other state-of- the-art baselines. Our cell achieves a test set perplexity of 62.4 on the Penn Treebank, which is 3.6 perplexity better than the previous state-of-the-art._ [1]

To translate that, they built and train a RNN to design neural networks. These machine designed networks are almost equal to the best human designed network on an image-recognition benchmark, and outperform the best human-designed systems on a text understanding benchmark.

[1] [http://openreview.net/forum?id=r1Ue8Hcxg](http://openreview.net/forum?id=r1Ue8Hcxg)

</comment><comment><USER3> Although TensorFlow/Keras allows anyone to implement Deep Learning easily, that doesn't mean that they will get _hired_ for a relevant job position without a PhD. Most Deep Learning jobs, and even relatively mundane Data Scientist jobs nowadays, want a PhD from my experience. There is a surplus of Statistics/CS PhDs, why would a company hire someone without one if they do not have to?

Without a relevant job position, knowing how to implement Deep Learning is a buzzword trick for Medium thought pieces or getting $$ in funding from venture capitalists for a generic "AI" startup that no one actually understands how it works.

<comment><USER4> I have seen this from multiple angles.

I used to teach at a data science bootcamp where many of the students got hired by big companies.

I've also been running a deep learning startup for the last few years and have hired quite a few people.

Many of our team don't have phds but can still write backprop code for even complex modules like inception among other things. A lot of my students didn't have phds either.

A few of us (me included) are self taught. I've also coauthored the largest oreilly book on deep learning: [http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920035343.do](http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920035343.do)

1 piece of advice I would offer is building something that differentiates you from the rest. Many of these "medium thought pieces" you're talking about are actually very cool applications of deep learning. If you want to get hired for these kinds of roles, I would demonstrate you understand how to build things with deep learning. The litmus test I would also look for is "I trained a net from scratch and innovated in x way". Honestly, there's a rare amount of talent out there that can do well at software engineering as well as deep learning. I'm not convinced a phd is a hard requirement.

I get that recruiters at these larger companies definitely tend to look for the buzz words and often can't tell the difference so it's definitely harder going the traditional route.

Tech hiring also tends to be a networking thing as much as it is buzz word bingo no matter what field you're in. If you can network a bit and build something cool that demonstrates an understanding of deep learning I don't see the problem.

<comment><USER5> Regarding your book, have you expanded on the math section? I saw somewhere a draft of the material and the math review seemed to be broken up into short paragraphs. These short paragraphs lacked examples and appeared to assume previous background knowledge in the subject, which seems contradictory to the book's title and aim. For example.. I believe you mentioned somewhere "The Jacobian is a m x n matrix containing the 1st order partial derivatives of vectors with respect to vectors." \-- Since I have a math background I can understand what you write. But for someone with little to no math background (e.g. a software practitioner) this may throw them off.

I am hesitant to recommend your book to a true practitioner due to the assumed knowledge presented within the math section. I think a better treatment of mathematics would assume the reader has little to no background but is intelligent enough to learn ground up the specific use cases of the mathematics for the deep learning techniques presented in the book. See: [http://www.deeplearningbook.org/](http://www.deeplearningbook.org/) for better treatment of the math review. It seems more thorough and makes less assumptions about the math background of the reader.

I would love to recommend your book to a practitioner but I'm afraid the math section (the version I reviewed) would scare them off/they would get little out of it.

<comment><USER6> > _I believe you mentioned somewhere "The Jacobian is a m x n matrix > containing the 1st order partial derivatives of vectors with respect to > vectors." \-- Since I have a math background I can understand what you > write. But for someone with little to no math background (e.g. a software > practitioner) this may throw them off._

This makes sense. However, there will _always_ be requirements to understand any given topic. It is recursive and dangerous to assume otherwise because knowledge builds on previous knowledge. Knowledge gaps for requirements should be an exception handled by the reader, not by the author because it penalizes everyone who doesn't have that gap.

I understand the effort of authors wanting their books to be self contained and _inclusive_ , _bringing everyone up to speed_ , but this brings up awful college memories and students having to wait for the one person who doesn't know matrix multiplication asking a question in a class that is _not_ about linear algebra. This person was the exception and instead of learning it on his own time, he was willing to penalize everyone.

Similarly, in the context of books, this is the reason 600 pages is the norm with the same first 400 pages "bringing everyone up to speed" (100 pages for a Python introduction, 70 pages for elementary linear algebra, etc).

The overlap is just _staggering_ and it is safe to assume that a 600 pages book does _not_ cost the same as a 200 pages book. In other words, everyone is paying the price for the one guy who wants to do the sexy Machine Learning/Deep Learning/Pattern Recognition, but doesn't want to bother looking up the _Jacobian_ on his own. We're paying for the 400 pages we'll never read.

A large percentage of books caters to the beginner/neophyte knowing that being a beginner is a relatively short step for someone who has a long road ahead. There's an assumption of non-evolution/improvement, an everlasting tutorial 0. Imagine how frustrating it would be to have every item in the world being designed for crawling babies and disregarding the facts that they're on their way to be adults.

<comment><USER5> Chapter 1 is completely trivial to anyone with mathematics training. It makes no difference to me if the author expands upon the section or not. It doesn't hurt my demographics of readership because we wouldn't read that section anyways. You know who would read it? The 'practitioner'. Someone that hasn't seen a matrix since high school or freshman year of college.

The interviews the authors give paint the picture this book is for the 'practitioner'. If Chapter 1 is meant for a brief review then don't advertise the book for a complete practitioner/beginner. Either make the book for the practitioner or not. If you do, then don't pretend to serve introductory math in it that the unfamiliarized reader will read and understand. They fail at their purpose there. So either make that chapter useful for the practitioner or leave it out and assume the mathematicians already know it. Maybe put it in an appendix and let us get to the meat quicker. It honestly does not take much time to define what a matrix is, give an example, define matrix multiplication, give examples etc. Same applies with basic definition and examples of derivatives. These are mindless mechanical procedures anyone can learn. It wouldn't take too much extra space to include some thoughtful examples. Maybe I should write an 'introductory group theory' textbook and start discussing geometric group theory 2 pages in if we want to get into not serving an intended audience's purpose.

I like what the author's are doing. I'm on their side, but I'm making suggestions that could serve a wider audience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This video has nothing to do with the title "without a PhD". It's a walkthrough of basic techniques for training neural networks on the MNIST handwriting dataset.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a great tutorial for beginners. His sample code[1] is much better than the MNIST tutorials on the Tensorflow page, especially those visualizations.

[1] [https://github.com/martin-gorner/tensorflow-mnist- tutorial/](https://github.com/martin-gorner/tensorflow-mnist-tutorial/)

</comment><comment><USER9> Here is the full code from his slides: [https://gist.github.com/c4127d2d899386179dbd2e6cd013a87e](https://gist.github.com/c4127d2d899386179dbd2e6cd013a87e)

I just added a few comments and constant names.

</comment><comment><USER10> I am struggling to understand how TensorFlow should be used, but the syntax is very alien to me. I found Therano documentation much easier to follow. Is it just me?

</comment><comment><USER11> 99.3% accuracy is not that great. Currently the best performer on this data set has 99.77% accuracy:

[http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/](http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/mnist/)

<comment><USER12> What is the human accuracy on this data set?

<comment><USER13> more interesting question: if some of those "digits" are so hard to recognize even by humans then how can we ever label them with the one true "correct" answer?

Do we know a person who draw those digits and ask "what artist had in mind when making this masterpiece" ? And even then someone might have been trying to draw the "2" but end effect looks more like "3".

I think that some of the test cases simply don't have definitive answer and trying to reach 100% accuracy is just misguided effort.

<comment><USER12> Another interesting question is which approach most closely matches the errors made by humans.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Pirate Bay Founder Wins Back Passport from Swedish Embassy - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-wins-back-passport-from-swedish-embassy-121006/ <comment><USER3> Irrespective of the guilt or innocence of Assange or the Pirate Bay people there have been massive irregularities in Swedish government activities such that they can only be explained by corruption or incompetence and vindictiveness. While that should come as no surprise to anyone, it certainly damages Sweden's image heavily.

<comment><USER4> What does this have to do with Assange? Assange is being extradited because he's accused of raping something. There's been nothing irregular - <USER2> Assange et al inventing implausible fictional motives behind the extradition request.

<comment><USER4> Why am I being downvoted? If you think the extradition of Assange to Sweden is all a plot to get him to the USA, you need to read a lot more about the case.

Extraditing him to Sweden makes it harder for him to be extradited to the USA - in effect, you then have to go through extradition procedures in both the UK and Sweden.

This is an interesting, useful, and relevant article (and published by a left of centre source at that): [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen- green/2012/08/...](http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen- green/2012/08/..).</comment></comment></comment>


Burisma: US firm says Russia hacked company at heart of Trump impeachment - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51103556 <comment><AUTHOR> I couldn't find a working link to the actual Area 1 report; [https://cdn.area1security.com/reports/Area-1-Security- Phishi...](https://cdn.area1security.com/reports/Area-1-Security- PhishingBarismaHoldings.pdf) seems to now be 'access denied'.

One aspect of being attacked like this is that it will call into question the provenance of any 'smoking guns' later discovered in the company's emails etc.</comment>


A SWAT team blew a hole in my 2-year-old son - <AUTHOR> http://www.salon.com/2014/06/24/a_swat_team_blew_a_hole_in_my_2_year_old_son/ <comment><USER2> This was the result of a no-knock warrant: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No- knock_warrant](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-knock_warrant), which allows police to enter a home without prior warning, on the theory that giving notice will allow people inside to destroy evidence. They are almost uniquely a product of the drug war. One can imagine very few situations outside of drugs were evidence could be so easily destroyed as to justify a no-knock warrant.

<comment><USER3> It's a really stupid theory. Destroying evidence is just another charge to throw on and doesn't really suggest any risk of violence. Though sure, if they flush in time maybe the police lose out. But it hardly seems worth it. It ought to be possible to serve warrant without instigating a violent encounter. And it's not like the risk of destruction of evidence is anything new. You could easily destroy evidence well before the US was even founded. Might have been even easier, historically. Burn it, throw it in a river, etc. No-knock aggression should be reserved for situations where there's a very very strong expectation of violent resistance and that's it.

<comment><USER4> Also in general the severity of the charge is directly proportional to the quantity of drugs. So if the quantity is instantly flushable, how serious of a charge can it have been, and thus how much accidental damage is acceptable in the arrest?

<comment><USER5> OK, so, to the best of my knowledge, 1 kg of cocaine is worth about $20K. Assuming cocaine has roughly the density of baking soda, this amount ought to be easily disposable in a single flush. So you could flush $100K worth of coke down a toilet in under a minute.

<comment><USER6> Seems optimistic to me. If you flush in rapid succession the reservoir has to fill again. I guess that a good flush requires, depending on circumstances, 20s of refilling. That would lower the throughput significantly. Also, the suspect has to move the cocaine from hiding to the toilet. Sure, $20K is a lot of money but were not talking Pablo Escobar-like quantities here.

Edit: also clogging, not sure when this happens and not really willing to experiment.

<comment><USER7> Cocaine is far more water soluble than baking soda. Extremely, extremely water soluble -- about 2 grams of cocaine can dissolve in 1 ml of water (compare to baking soda: About .1 grams per ml of water)

You can't clog a toilet by flushing cocaine.

<comment><USER6> But you also have to get rid of the packaging. I was imagining dumping a package of cocaine, but that's stupid: at least opening the packaging would help with the clogging by letting the cocaine dissolve. Not sure what the packaging would do with the pipes and whether this only packaging holds up as evidence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This should _outrage_ any thinking citizen.

We need a new policy for instances of excessive use of force by police: if any such is suspected, _all_ officers involved must be immediately suspended, _without_ pay, while an impartial judge, _not_ a police "Internal Affairs Division" (since police officers too often try to "protect their own"), investigates to see whether the claim is justified. If it's not, the officer(s) can be reinstated and given back pay.

If, however, the police _did_ use excessive force:

(1) The officer(s) involved must be _criminally_ indicted and prosecuted for any applicable charges. In this case, it would likely be "premeditated assault with a deadly weapon," and, if, God forbid, that child dies, the charge becomes _first-degree murder._ If convicted, the officer(s) must then be _fired,_ losing _all_ pension and benefits.

(2) The officer(s) must lose _any and all_ immunity to lawsuit and/or damages under state law, including any "homestead exemption," making it possible for the victims' families to sue them for every penny they have. Yes, leaving them and their families living under a _bridge_ if necessary.

Perhaps knowing that there might be consequences like this will make some of these officers _think_ and _double-check their facts_ before deciding to play G.I. Joe. If they think these rules are too tough, well, they always have an option: They can _resign_ and go _work_ for a living. To paraphrase Super Chicken, "They knew the job was dangerous when they took it."

<comment><USER2> This is just senseless ranting.

1) It's unconstitutional, as a violation of due process, to suspend officers without pay, before they have been adjudicated as having done something wrong.

2) It's probably unconstitutional to impose forfeiture of vested interests as punishment for a crime.

3) Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.

4) Removing legal protections for police sounds lovely when you only consider situations like this one, but you forget that for every one instance of something like this, there are dozens of instances of actual bad guys filing meritless lawsuits.

<comment><USER9> > Premediated murder requires specific intent to kill. Even if the kid had > died, it would most likely be negligent homicide.

Honest question: I'm walking past the somebody's house with an assault grenade in my hand. I feel miserable and I throw the grenade into the window. 5 people die. Is that negligence? I didn't know whose house is it, is there any people there, etc.

<comment><USER10> For starters, you should read the Illustrated Guide to Law ([http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5](http://lawcomic.net/guide/?page_id=5)) and perhaps buy the print copy of the book. Focus on Chapter 6, about Mens Rea, and Chapter 8, Actus Reus.

Then figure out whether the jury is going to believe that you didn't intend to harm anybody when you threw a grenade into a house.

<comment><USER9> Awesome book, thanks, exactly what law idiots like me need.

I actually ignored the jury factor, my fault. When police officers brutally kill someone they're still "our" guys, good guys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sad that none of this surprises me anymore.

I gave up hope after the same local cops who have long been notorious for shooting everybody [1](2001) got off scot-free for contriving a raid of a local mayor, intimidating his mother in-law, shooting his dogs and unapologetically quipping about it [2](2008).

1: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/content/nation/investig...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/content/nation/investigative/policeshootings.html)

 _" By any measure, Prince George's County police have shot and killed people at rates that exceed those of nearly any other large police force in the nation."_

2: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid)

 _" The event gained national and international media attention. While the Calvos were cleared of wrongdoing, the police were accused by the Calvos and civil rights groups of lacking a proper search warrant, excessive force, and failure to conduct a proper background investigation of the home being raided. Despite the criticisms, no action has been taken against the officers or their respective police departments. In August 2010, Sheriff Jackson stated that "we'd do it again. Tonight."[1]"_

</comment><comment><USER12> The increasing militarization of police in the USA has seemingly had a significant (and hopefully unintended) side-effect: Police tend to treat suspects (and those around them) not as law-breaking _citizens_ , but as _enemy combatants_.

<comment><USER13> Is this enough to be able to challenge the constitutionality out of SWAT team usage and no-knock warrants, based on the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. For example, in this case, the police were looking for one individual and found a family inside. Shouldn't the police treat them all as innocent instead of enemy combatants until they've positively identified the suspect?

If we have to err between the safety of the public and the safety of police officers, that's an easy decision to make since hazards are part of the job they have chosen to perform. Using SWAT teams externalizes the risk and danger of the job.

IMHO, it should be a high bar to meet to justify the use of SWAT teams in any situation. A judge should have to sign off on the use based on extraordinary evidence justifying why such excessive force is need. Once a warrant is acquired, do police have carte blanche to exercise it as they see fit?

<comment><USER14> A judge would have signed off on this raid and was probably reasonably aware of the tactics they were likely to employ.

<comment><USER15> This is an interesting point, and depending on the jurisdiction, some judges are elected officials.

It should come back on the judge that he or she authorized this abuse of power. Unfortunately, the feedback loop between the (hypothetical) judicial backstop on the system and the enforcers of the law tends to be left open by ignorance.

It would be good for local political activists in Atlanta to make sure that the judge who authorized this warrant has a significantly curtailed career.

<comment><USER16> OK, but the judge can only go by the evidence s/he is presented with. This judge might have been rubber-stamping SWAT raid applications, or might have been given sufficient evidence to think there was a serious risk of a firefight.

<comment><USER13> Are judges required to make a statement on each warrant justifying their decision to grant a warrant given the information presented, or is it basically just a signature.

I would hope that signing off on a warrant requires more rigor than a mere signature.

How adversarial is the warrant granting process. Is it common for warrants asked for to be granted by default, or is there an adversarial process in place that forces the police/detectives to go back and do more investigative work if they don't provide enough substantive evidence to justify a warrant being granted.

Furthermore, is warrant-granting by judges a matter of the public record. i.e. Can I go somewhere to lookup how many warrants a particular judge has granted, how many they have denied, and how many that were denied were eventually granted and the average number of resubmissions required to get those that were initially denied approved?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm struggling to understand how any of the officers on the SWAT team - or, for that matter, those who formulated the policies to use tools like M-16s and flash grenades in drug raids - could possibly consider their actions to be less serious than someone taking or dealing in drugs.

<comment><USER2> You're missing the social context here. First, this is never about using it's about dealing. Police enforcement efforts are almost entirely preoccupied with trafficking. Second, dealers are, by and large, bad people for other reasons. Your suburban pot dealer isn't the target of no-knock raids. The targets are guys with long rap sheets of felony convictions, often for violent crimes.

Drugs are a proxy in a war between police and gangs. Atlanta had 81 murders in 2013, versus 82 for London, which has 20x the population. To an extent the drug trade causes some of this violence, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. Atlanta is in a former slave-holding state and was segregated as recently as the 1970's. It's a city where 27% of residents, and 31% of children, are below the poverty line. Poverty is highly correlated with race: 33% of blacks and hispanics versus only 8% of whites. It's a city where 76% of poor families are led by women with no husband present.

Between the history of oppression and the massive racial disparity in the incidence of poverty, there is zero trust between the black majority and the white minority (which holds a majority of the economic and political power). This lack of trust is at the root of much of the conflict. Black and hispanic communities are unhappy with the crime, but also, arguably for good reasons, don't help the police shut down the gangs. At the same time, wealthier whites support the aggressive enforcement because they are scared and the negative side-effects don't happen in their neighborhoods.

This is not to justify no-knock raids for drug enforcement, but to help illuminate the mindset of the officers involved and how they justify their actions. I am in favor of deescalating the drug war, but that's just the first step in normalizing our cities, which see violence that is without comparison in the developed world.

<comment><USER18> >Second, dealers are, by and large, bad people for other reasons. Your suburban pot dealer isn't the target of no-knock raids. The targets are guys with long rap sheets of felony convictions, often for violent crimes.

This may (or may not) be true in Atlanta, but in South Carolina, it's demonstrably untrue. We had a wave of SWAT raids from 2006-2010 on poker games, culminating in this:

[http://pokerati.com/2010/11/poker-raid-in-south- carolina-1-p...](http://pokerati.com/2010/11/poker-raid-in-south- carolina-1-player-1-cop-shot-violent-standoff-and-hefty-charges-in-uncertain- battleground-state-pictures/)

None of these poker game players were "guys with long raps sheets". In fact, most of them had no prior criminal record.

I know of numerous other SWAT raids for other white collar crimes like campaign finance violations but I don't have time to dig them all up now.

Finally, SWAT raids are _routinely_ carried out on "suburban pot dealers". Here's one from a few months ago:

[http://marlborough.patch.com/groups/police-and- fire/p/swat-t...](http://marlborough.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/swat- team-raids-home-arrests-alleged-drug-dealer-marlborough)

Just Google "pot dealer" and SWAT and you'll find tons of other examples.

<comment><USER19> When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When a police department forms a swat team, they're going to use it, even for minor offenses.

<comment><USER20> Heh, I misread this as: "When all you have is a hummer,"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> When I read stuff like this, I'm really happy that I am not living in the US. It sounds so crazy to a European person, I can't really imagine how Americans manage to normally live their lives.

<comment><USER22> _" I can't really imagine how Americans manage to normally live their lives."_

This is truly awful, but the vast majority of Americans will never be subject to a SWAT raid or anything like it (especially if they're not involved in illegal activity). Or terrorist attacks. Or mass shootings. Or etc etc.

People are notoriously bad at estimating the probability rare but extreme events will happen to them.

Of course, that doesn't make this ok. I personally believe SWAT team usage should be restricted to hostage, active shooter, and similar situations.

<comment><USER23> _> but the vast majority of Americans will never be subject to a SWAT raid or anything like it (especially if they're not involved in illegal activity). Or terrorist attacks. Or mass shootings. Or etc etc._

While that's true, it's somewhat beside the point. US citizens are far more likely to be a on the receiving end of a SWAT raid or a victim of murder than citizens of other countries at a comparable level of development. The fact that it's only a minority of the population doesn't mean there isn't a serious issue.

To put some numbers on it, the US annual murder rate is ~5 people per 100k population. Yes, it's small, but compare that to 1.0 in the UK, 1.1 in Australia, 1.6 in Canada (0.4 in my country), and clearly it's a more dangerous place.

There are estimated to be ~50-80k US SWAT raids per year annually. Of those in Maryland for example:

\- half are for non-violent "part-II" crimes

\- a third resulted in no arrests

\- >1% resulted in an officer's weapon being fired

I didn't know those SWAT stats prior to today and I find them shocking.

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

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2014/02/17/s...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2014/02/17/shedding-light-on-the-use-of-swat-teams/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Caveat: I don't support frequent use of no-knock warrants.

That said, this is another article on the story: [http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured- stu...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/us/georgia-toddler-injured-stun-grenade- drug-raid/) According to CNN, the offender had sold meth to an informant "a few hours earlier" at the house and had a previous felony weapons charge. Their target is a meth dealer who brings a gun to the table.

Given that information, it seems less crazy to think that a law enforcement team would feel that weapons and aggressive entry were the safest option to prevent a gunfight.

They got it wrong. They entered a civilian home in the same way a US military operative would enter a war zone. They focused on the one target, the one objective, the one outcome and forgot about children. They forgot this is America and we believe in protecting the rule of law and we also believe in protecting innocent children.

But put yourself in their position. If your job is to protect against the propagation of methamphetamine and you have a target who they believe has a weapon, would you knock?

<comment><USER25> No, but I wouldn't raid a house either. I'm no police tactician, but it can't possibly be true that raiding a house is less dangerous than waiting for the suspect to leave his house and arresting him then. For anyone, including the cops. SWAT teams raiding homes should be reserved for _active_ dangers, like hostage situations or shootouts. There's no need for this sort of urgency for apprehending a drug dealer especially given the collateral damage it's so likely to cause.

Edit: wording

<comment><USER26> Exactly. And that approach seems to work well in just about every other Western country.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> America is a scary country to live in. I am not sure if it is just the fact that this sort of thing gets reported more often of late ...only for America, or just that I've been paying more attention of late.

The number of places and the absurdity of the manner in which you can get killed, hurt, jailed, or have your entire life irrecoverably change is just frightening.

Now, I don't intend to be Anti-American, I already accepted that there is a possibility that this sort of thing gets reported more for the US. Also, I know that one can claim that I am generalizing and this doesn't happen all the time, all over the place.

However, I've read so many news reports[1] of simple things like frivolous lawsuits that completely damage a persons life to completely avoidable instances of serious life altering events like this news story which makes me wonder why would a professional making a decent living (like say a software engineer) would want to move to America. I personally, am not too inclined.

[1] I have often thought about creating a site that aggregates such horror stories to serve as a warning -- a mirror, lets say ...or if you really want me to spell it out -- a reminder, that, 'No, American is _not_ the greatest country in the world'. Before you decide to downvote and retort, read the article (again) and empathize with me, if you can, how this sort of thing would invoke such a reaction.

<comment><USER28> America is among the top places we got in this planet, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is a side-effect of police militarization that doesn't get much attention from its critics: using advanced military equipment should also require advanced military training. Local police agencies that receive all this new military-spec equipment don't always get (or more likely, never get) the funding for necessary training on how to use it. Much less does such training really exist since this stuff was all designed for use in actual war zones. The extant training materials would inherently be oriented around that type of usage.

Even the worst part of the worst city in the USA could not be more different than a war-stricken area of Iraq or any other region where military action is a common occurrence (other than that they probably contain more friendlies than enemies).

Aside: It is truly sickening that they used a flashbang on a residential house where they hoped to apprehend a single, low-value suspect that could not possibly have been that well armed. Again, lack of proper training.

<comment><USER30> Lack of proper military training is not the problem here. The problem is the militarization in the first place. In war, collateral damage is considered unavoidable and ultimately acceptable in pursuit of victory, which is why drug warriors accept that the occasional baby will be maimed by a flashbang. That sort of approach is unacceptable for domestic law-enforcement. The solution is to roll back the militarization, not double down by giving police more military training.

<comment><USER29> Hence why I said the lack of training is a side-effect of militarization. In other words, yes, militarization of police is the main problem here. I agree with you; I was just pointing out yet-another-reason why it is even worse in practice than in theory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> What can we do about this?

Like many of the commenters here, this article fills me with outrage. Even given the possibility/probability (as mentioned by iambateman) that the target of the SWAT team was guilty of meth pushing, armed, and dangerous.

What can an individual do to effect change? The executive branch seem to be nigh-invulnerable these days. Checks and balances don't work when it's the enforcement arm who need to be kept in check.

Is there something productive I and others can do rather than sitting here powerless in anger?

<comment><USER32> Legalize all drugs, and fill each one with literature about how damaging it is to you (similar to what some countries do on cigarette packs). If you can get heroin at CVS, you wouldn't need to go to your local drug dealer and help finance his shady/violent activities. I know it sounds crazy but we already knowingly sell stuff that can kill you (cigarettes, alcohol). The gangs/drug dealers would simply not survive if drugs were sold legally and conveniently.

<comment><USER33> And who gets to foot the bill for all of these new addicts?

The cigarette companies have been used for years for killing people. Imagine he amount of people using for ods.

Tort reform would also be need for this to ever work.

<comment><USER34> Some countries have experimented with state supply of heroin to addicts - it's actually a really cheap policy and seems to work well: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin- assisted_treatment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin-assisted_treatment)

Obviously, the taxpayer is footing the bill for this, but total spending reduces (through the reduction in drug related crime).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good grief. SWAT teams in the US are utterly out of control. It's one thing to have resources for the relatively rare armed robbery/hostage/mass shooter situation, to _respond_ to an outbreak of violence; it's quite another to be using them for drug raids and other contexts where they initiate or are the sole cause of violence. This goes hand in hand with the confrontation-obsessed gun culture we have, in which a subset of gun owners dwell constantly on the omnipresent risks of crime and the need for elephant-grade stopping power, despite the clear long-term trend of falling crime.

The Cato institute has worked with journalist Radley Balko (who is the expert in this area) to produce a map of botched SWAT raids: [http://www.cato.org/raidmap](http://www.cato.org/raidmap)

I really see no other course for citizens other than to start attending public meetings and speaking up whenever public figures spout truisms about the safety of law enforcement officers being top priority. It's not top priority, that's why they get paid the big bucks - to put the safety of law-abiding citizens above their own.

<comment><USER35> That's a fascinating map. One of the interesting things it shows is that the density of botched raids is _not_ correlated to population density.

What that suggests is that the raids are the results of authories in some areas _not knowing what they 're doing_ while authorities in other areas do.

<comment><USER36> Also note how many raids are the result of a single informant. I was browsing raids in my area and most of them were from a single informant; in one case even an informant who had a known antagonistic relationship with the subject of the raid.

<comment><USER37> What's disturbing is how many of them are based on a single informant and also look like not the slightest effort was made to verify that information. Literally picking up a guy off the street for some minor crime, telling him you'll let him go for a bigger fish, getting an address from him, and sending in the goons without another thought. If it's a big enough crime to justify a SWAT raid, then surely it's big enough for just a little bit of investigation.

It seems dangerous in two ways. Both that most of these tips are probably for completely innocent people who may now be subject to extreme levels of violence with no justification, and that once in a while, one of them might be for something much worse than they thought, putting the officers themselves in a lot of unnecessary danger because they didn't do any investigation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is truly awful. The sheer lack of restraint involved in this raid is sickening. :/

<comment><USER39> I'm not normally a fan of litigation, but in this case they should sue the police department into the ground. If this behaviour was way too expensive to sustain because of liabilities, they'd have to curtail it.

Complaints are something they just ignore. Settlements _hurt_.

If this was some national security incident where the nephew was about to activate a nuclear weapon this sort of force might be justified. That it was for _drugs_ is the most disturbing part. How does that help anyone in any capacity?

<comment><USER16> I agree, but settlements don't hurt enough - ultimately they come out of the taxpayer's pocket,a nd unless a mayor or police chief is held personally responsible, all that happens is a game of bureaucratic musical chairs. This also needs civil suits against the officers, and jail terms. At least the Georgia Bureau of Investigation is treating it as a criminal incident, so it's possible that one or more of these police may do time.

However, the problem is systemic. I don't see a change without major adjustments to the law which would be highly unpopular, eg mandatory life sentences for crimes committed by police officers or similarly draconian measures.

<comment><USER40> We don't need draconian measures; we need substantive and reliably _enforced_ measures. People respond much more strongly to certainty of punishment than severity.

<comment><USER16> I hew to the economic view that they respond to the combination of the two, in contrast to this position paper: [http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%2...](http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/deterrence%20briefing%20.pdf) which I think begs the question. The problem is that certainty of punishment is difficult to achieve, especially where co-offenders have a strong incentive to back each other up - in this case, groups of police officers :-(

<comment><USER40> We _should_ (for some value of "should") respond to the expected value plus something like the Kelly criterion. In practice, my understanding is that the research consistently shows that we are systematically less sensitive to severity than certainty. Of course the severity needs to be sufficient that it can't just be written off as a cost of doing business, but that is true long before we hit "draconian". You can insist that, in spite of the research, we're all perfect little economic calculators acting rationally, but know that you run significant chance of being wrong.

But sure, let's run with your assumption.

 _" The problem is that certainty of punishment is difficult to achieve"_

"X is hard, therefore Y," without establishing that Y is worthwhile, is a piece of reasoning responsible for many ills. Yes, it's a cost-benefit thing, but bear the following points in mind:

When you have (X * Y) in general, and X >> Y, you can make a much bigger difference with a small change to Y than a big change to X (unless it's an exceptionally big change to X).

Costs of long term imprisonment scales with the _medical needs_ of the people we're imprisoning, which is much faster than linear.

Draconian sentencing means we're doing harm to the those we falsely convict (which will inevitably be above zero); this means increasing the risk to innocent officers, which lowers the quality of officers we can recruit.

 _" especially where co-offenders have a strong incentive to back each other up - in this case, groups of police officers :-("_

This is a tremendous issue, for sure, but it is one that needs to be resolved for a whole host of reasons, of which this is only one.

Note that a more draconian sentence _reinforces_ this - if I think there's a chance my innocent buddy is getting sent up for life, I'm more concerned (and therefore, presumably, more willing to stretch the truth) than if I think there's a chance my innocent buddy is getting a slap on the wrist - so if I'm mistaken about my buddy's innocence, raising X might actually _decrease_ Y. (Actually, that holds even if I think my buddy is guilty of something that doesn't deserve so stiff a penalty...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> These stories seem fake to me. I know they are real but I have trouble believing that people, human beings would actually act like this. Why do we have people acting as police that wouldn't let a mother comfort her crying, very injured child. They weren't after her, she wasn't the criminal.

<comment><USER42> Are you being serious?

In Mexico the narco terrorists pulled innocent people off of a bus and made them pit fight to the death for their amusement.

[http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexican- crook...](http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mexican-crook- Gangsters-arrange-fights-to-death-1692716.php)

In the middle ages they would impale you on a spike so that you died slowly over days.

In Rwanda one tribe butchered 5 million people of another tribe with machetes.

An that's just examples I can think of off the top of my head.

And you have trouble believing that a few cops wouldn't let a mother comfort her child?

<comment><USER43> You do realize you're comparing the present day United States law enforcement with Rwandean tribes, Mexican narco-terrorists and the middle ages?

<comment><USER42> Are you blind?

Until recently America had child labor and would lynch black people. A FEDERAL judge in my hometown of New Orleans is famous for saying "We like to try our niggers before we hang them".

Human nature is human nature.

We live in a 'veneer' of civilization.

Underneath are still the same old animal instincts honed over millions of years of evolution.

Don't ever forget that. Or forget it at your peril.

<comment><USER44> A society like the one you describe should not have nuclear weapons. Now I'm afraid that if it weren't for the MAD (mutual assured destruction) US would have been much more genocidal.

<comment><USER45> Oh, we probably would have invaded/nuked the Soviet Union. It's not like MAD stopped us from sowing destruction and chaos around the globe, either. It just made us fight proxy wars instead of real ones with other nuclear powers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Then there's the case where the police found drugs in the mail, but let it be delivered anyway. When the homeowner (the mayor of the town, incidentally) came home and brought the package in, they attacked, killing his two labradors (one while it was trying to run away).

After, even though the police had the drugs in their hands when they found it in the mail, the chief said, "We′ve apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets....Quite frankly, we′d do it again."

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/07...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003299.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor'...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor's_residence_drug_raid)

</comment><comment><USER47> If stories like this are new to anyone reading this, there is a great book worth checking out. "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces" by Radley Balko, ISBN-13: 9781610392112

<comment><USER48> I came here to post a link to that exact book - the one thing I _will_ say is that the book is basically divided into two sections. The first section is a history of the militarization of US police that is fascinating, well- researched, and full of 50 years of context that I was totally unaware of. The book is worth reading for that alone.

The second section, really the last 1/3rd of the book, is a series of essays and articles, more op-ed than factual history. This is where Radley Balko's libertarian streak comes out full-bore, and it moves from semi-scholarly work to libertarian polemic. It's fine, of course, it's his book and he's entitled to write what he likes, but there's a lot of anti-government rhetoric and anti-social policy language in there that I found offputting.

In addition, throughout the book, the police are described in aggressive terms, they're always "threatening" or "menacing" or "assaulting" \- while the people being arrested are "cowering", "hiding", "pleading".

It seems like it would be hard to know exactly in many cases what everyone was doing, and instead Balko is putting his emotional slant on what was happening. Then, in the second section of the book, he freely admits that he started tracking and writing about when dogs were killed during SWAT raids because it got a much more impassioned response from readers.

None of this removes the value of the book, which as I said was excellent. But I think I would have appreciated a little more nuance in some of the tone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> We didn't learn our lesson from Prohibition, and now it's happening all over again, only worse.

I'm starting to think we need a Constitutional amendment that prohibits the outlawing of drugs. Something like --

      The right of access to drugs of all kinds shall not be infringed.
      Congress shall have the power to regulate and tax drugs, but may not
      ban a drug outright.

This obviously needs work, but I think it's headed in the right direction.

The intent of the phrase "right of access" is that people should have the right to obtain a drug if they can afford it; my intent is not to create any obligation on the part of the government to make it affordable, and certainly not to provide it for free.

The intent of the phrase "drugs of all kinds" is to include any substance someone may wish to ingest, inhale, or inject, for any purpose, medical, recreational, or otherwise.

The intent of "Congress shall have the power to regulate" is that I think the FDA should continue to enforce purity and labelling requirements.

It would be nice to find wording to clarify that intoxication does not relieve one of responsibility for any act committed while intoxicated.

I know, it's hard to imagine such a thing passing anytime in the next 50 years. But it's not too soon to start talking about it :-)

</comment><comment><USER50> And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you. Defending yourself against a corrupt, ignorant, and vindictive police force is one of the best uses I can think of for the second amendment.

<comment><USER40> _" And yet if you suggest that police are anything less than complete heroes in every way your neighbors and relatives will shun you."_

Not in my experience, but I have no trouble believing that has much to do with my social circles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Police militarization has many causes and many bad effects. The pointless and faintly racist "drug war" is one that has been noted in many comments here. There's another that deserves mention, not because I believe it's most significant but because it seems strangely absent from those same comments.

>>> Police go in armed to the teeth in part because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that there's a high probability of the people inside being similarly armed. <<<

It's a classic arms race. Yes, the police should stop encouraging further escalation. So should others.

</comment><comment><USER43> That's incredible.

What's the incidence of things like this in the rest of the world?

<comment><USER52> In Western Europe and much of Asia, almost nil (countries like South Korea, Japan ...) In many countries, I'm afraid it's quite common, abuse of police power is nothing strange here. I've had it happen to me.

<comment><USER43> Where are you located?

<comment><USER52> South Africa (Pretoria). And by, I've had that happen to me, I mean Police intimidation, not a flashbang in my chest. For that sort of thing see Palestine, Iraq etc However we see abuse of Police power very often here.

<comment><USER53> You can see police intimidation everywhere. Even in Slovenia and other EU countries, I believe. But there is a difference between "go home, you're drunk" (even though you have a legal right to be there) and "BANG! BANG!".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This is what comes from the aggressive militarization of our local police forces. Tell me again why our hometown of 7,000 (at the time) felt the need to develop a full-fledged SWAT unit. It has become even worse since 9/11\. Shoddy police work, an itchy trigger finger, and officers who seem to view local neighborhoods as insurgent-ridden Iraqi streets, has led to inexcusable collateral damage. The need for a responsive, well-funded police force is undeniable. But, clear leadership and strong, judicious restraint must balance that power.

</comment><comment><USER55> This will be getting worse unless people disconnect themselves from the system that allows things like this to happen.

By "disconnect" I mean secessio plebis - either physical with a move out of $this_jurisdiction, or economic, when a person minimizes their participation in the economy of $this_jurisdiction.

By continuing to use money of $this_central_bank for selling and buying goods and services in $this_jurisdiction, a person sends the following message to the legislators and enforcers:

"No matter what I say, here's my money. Let it be the token of my willingness to take more abuse. If I did not like how things work, I wouldn't be supporting your pyramid."

PS The main reward of government employess is neither money, nor vacation, nor pension, nor social perks, but immunity. It's getting away with holes in babies that makes the job attractive precisely to the people who like to make holes in others.

</comment><comment><USER46> Some departments apparently restrict people with IQ's over a certain limit.

[http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs- cops/sto...](http://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs- cops/story?id=95836)

Makes you wonder if we really should be militarizing them.

</comment><comment><USER56> Troubling. Their incompetence is incredible.

The thing that always amazes me about this is the unbelievable incompetence of our administrators. They keep doing things that don't work and expect them to work.

The unofficial motto: "If violence isn't doing the job, you're not using enough."

<comment><USER57> The incompetence would be fine if it wasn't for the lack of accountability..

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Is there any information about the actual incidence of this kind of thing? Best thing I can find is from the ACLU report, which suggests 5 non-suicide fatalities and 46 injuries -- but that's clearly from their limited subset.

</comment><comment><USER59> 1\. Can a person belonging to minority community dominate and trade in Majority dominant country without support of the Majority in most profitable, yet risky trade ? (possibility of being minority being made a scape goat ?) 2\. All being said and done, It doesn't matter what colour and state of the kid, its a crime from the SWAT, if it is actually happened. 3\. Unfortunately in any Surveillance state, there is no watch dog to make sure what various wings of the state are actually doing are Right - lawfully, morally and ethically.

There is always a way for them to escape from the charges.

</comment><comment><USER60> Oh, my. What recourse does the family have from all of this. There baby has a hole in his chest and severe burns.....not to mention the unjust nature of not letting a mother tend to her injured kid..

</comment><comment><USER61> > that we stop accepting brutal SWAT raids as a normal way to fight the "war > on drugs."

NO. Militarization et al are just symptoms. The deeper disease is the "War on drugs". Until we end the latest failed attempt at prohibition (and even deeper stop declaring "wars" on things (and even deeper become a rehabilitation/support society rather than punishment/control society)) we will suffer continuing collateral damage (erosion of rights, brutality, being a prison state, etc)

</comment><comment><USER62> Atlanta continues to amaze me. On one hand, I see reports every week from the police department at my school (downtown atlanta)about robberies/ mugging (armed) with usually no police officers around to help. The response times are usually >20 minutes (usually because they are way understaffed). And on the other, I see militarized police brutality. I wish there is a way to funnel my tax dollars to those departments that are going to help people rather than hurt them.

<comment><USER63> >those departments that are going to help people rather than hurt them

When you find a police department that fits this definition, please let us all know. I'm skeptical it's even a possibility.

<comment><USER64> There are some countries where police typically don't even typically carry around projectile weapons. The UK, for instance.

I think making sure police have some skin in the game, instead of pursuing the illusory chase of perfect security for them, is the answer. It's supposed to be public service, after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> If the police hadn't approached the home with confrontation in mind they may have noticed some other telling clues that the situation may not be what they thought it would be.

This is also the us (cops) versus "them" (non-cops) mentality and will lead to even more violent standoffs because situations like this will further lead non-cops to view cops no longer as "the good guys" which will lead the cops to view the...

</comment><comment><USER66> Time after time.

> Jose Guerena was a U.S. Marine veteran who served in the Iraq War and was > killed in his Tucson, Arizona home, on May 5, 2011, by officers of the Pima > County SWAT team, while they were executing a warrant to search his home in > relation to an ongoing investigation into drug smuggling.

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

</comment><comment><USER67> So... they caught the nephew eventually and took away his meth. Now we don't have to worry about meth anymore. They have taken care of the problem. Oh.... wait a minute. They haven't even put a dent in the problem.

Maybe they should requisition some of those unused cold war nuclear warheads from the military. THAT should take care of the problem. So... just how far are we willing to take this madness hmmm?

</comment><comment><USER68> Maybe flashbang grenades are too dangerous to throw around without warning?!

There was a story I saw yesterday about police shooting a 95yr old WW2 veteran in his own home because he didn't want to leave and was brandishing a knife. They were bean bag rounds but they shot him 6 times from close range and he died.

</comment><comment><USER69> And if the child gets to live, the family is stuck with the healthcare costs circus. What a terrifying story.

</comment><comment><USER70> The really hurtful kicker is the way they were treated given the worst possible scenario for a given parent.

</comment><comment><USER71> I was at a State Park in California recently and had a friendly talk with a ranger about local places to visit. It was hard not to notice the AR-15 and Shotgun mounted in his truck, as well as the sidearm on his hip. I'd never seen that before in all my years of camping with family.

<comment><USER72> The other side of the drug culture. They're some very nasty, and well armed folks using public lands to grow pot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Sue. It's the only way they will learn. Also, release some pictures of the boys injuries to the media. This topic needs some major attention and I don't think ever will get it without a large number of citizens being enraged.

</comment><comment><USER74> Why do Americans accept this sort of behaviour? Why haven't you people voted for some people who want to turn the police into an actual police force, rather than a well-equipped gang?

</comment><comment><USER75> This is so terrible. I hope this story gets shared everywhere, because this shouldn't be happening. They sent a SWAT team to a house before confirming that the person that they looked for was there? They threw a disabling weapon inside without noticing that there was a family with children in there? And like others have said, all that for a drug bust? It's sad that someone would give that order in the first place, and that there are people in our police forces who carry it out.

</comment><comment><USER76> This is very relevant: [http://www.cato.org/raidmap](http://www.cato.org/raidmap)

</comment><comment><USER77> This is incredibly disturbing. Police in the US are becoming increasingly violent, even while violent crime is falling.

</comment><comment><USER78> I was thinking to moving to the US and start my company

now i'm gonna stay home. At least no one is gonna fire a flash nade at me

</comment><comment><USER79> And yet we keep voting for candidates who support the drug war. This kid's blood is on our hands.

</comment><comment><USER80> Pay police brutality settlements out of the officer's pension fund. Problem solved.

</comment><comment><USER81> That reminds me of the baby getting a flash-bang grenade thrown in his crib. [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/toddler...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/23/toddler- injured-flash-grenade-drug-raid/11254289/)

<comment><USER82> Your link refers to the same swat raid, which would explain why it reminds you of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Not to be disrespectful to the family but the only thing that comes to mind is " 'Murica". I know a person here in Canada that was a victim of swat drug bust it was in no way as violent. They came during the day and, yes manhandled the suspects however they were quite polite about it.

</comment><comment><USER84> Land of the free and the home of the brave

</comment><comment><USER85> This. Is. Horrible.

And system failure.

</comment><comment><USER86> Absolutely disgusting.

@everyone

Did you vote for the 2 party dictatorship?

Are you going to vote for it again?

You are aren't you?

</comment><comment><USER87> Yeah. This happens to me all the time.

It reminds me of the time a guy told me about how he hated cops and that, just the week before, he was just walking down the street, a squad car pulled over, the cops got out and beat him up. He wasn't doing anything but walking down the street!

I am positive there is a side of this story not being told.

</comment><comment><USER88> gosh...this is so outrageous !!!

</comment><comment><USER89> 1\. This happened in rural Georgia, far away from Atlanta.

2\. The suspect was later arrested for dealing meth. This isn't a little dime bag situation as the clearly biased writer would have you believe.

3\. This isn't the suspect's first arrest, he was arrested before for distribution. Police found an AK-47 in his house.

Here are things that could have been done to prevent this situation. 1\. The homeowner could have not dealt meth. 2\. The parents could have not moved in with their AK-47 owning, meth dealing nephew.

Here are some likely other outcomes even if the SWAT raid didn't occur: 1\. One of homeowner's guns could have accidentally discharged and killed the child. 2\. Criminals could have robbed the house (a higher likelihood when you are running a drug ring out of your house) and killed the child.

That poor child's situation is a direct product of irresponsible parenting. There was a reason the police were at this house. Their tactics and the damage they did would have not been remotely possible if this guy wasn't armed with illegal weaponry and dealing drugs.

This isn't reddit. America is not out to get you. Don't be a criminal and don't associate with criminals and this doesn't happen to you.

<comment><USER65> Did you read the article?

1\. The suspect is the nephew. 2\. The nephew is not the home owner. 3\. The home owner wasn't the one dealing meth. 4\. The nephew/suspect wasn't present at the home at the time.

<comment><USER39> They'll get him eventually even if it takes another fifty armed assaults.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: App to never fall out of touch with friends and family again - <AUTHOR> http://nurtureapp.co.uk/android <comment><USER2> For me, an important feature is the automated reminders!</comment>


Minority Students Needed in Math and Science to Fight 'Brain Drain' - <AUTHOR> http://chronicle.com/article/Minority-Students-Needed-in/48568/ <comment><USER2> At the risk of being downvoted, let me rant: We need to reinstate hard-assed, traditional, back to basics curriculum. Period. Get rid of teacher credentialing systems and touchy-feely bullshit, and have kids start memorizing formulas, diagramming sentences, and reading classics again. And have them do A LOT of homework. And quit telling them and their parents that the primary thing is to have fun and feel satisfied -- it isn't.

Then we won't have a goddam brain drain -- it is an embarrassment to the American people that we can't educate ourselves.

<comment><USER3> I have a somewhat different kind of suggestion for what would most improve math teaching in the United States. See some of my favorite articles on the subject by mathematicians

[http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/ame...](http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/amed1.pdf)

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

[http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/ind...](http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/index.html)

<http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0503/0503081v1.pdf>

for the idea that proper mathematical education includes learning certain facts by heart through practice, but also includes a lot of flexibility of thinking and making deep connections between seemingly unrelated subjects.

<comment><USER2> My only concern is that we have to come up with a plan that can be explained to the 100,000 or primary school teachers in the USA. Rarefied curriculums are like rarefied programming languages -- they don't "take", or they just distract. We need a Python, not an ML to explain to folks, and, honestly, "drill the crap out of your students and test them regularly" is easy to explain in a staff meeting... and would be a vast improvement over the BS that passes for education these days.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> >At a briefing session organized by Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, a Texas Democrat and chairman of the House education committee's higher-education subcommittee, three mathematics and science professors advocated institutional programs that had succeeded in attracting and retaining black, Hispanic, and American-Indian students.

What would happen if our government attempted to specifically attract and retain white Americans in math, physics, and engineering? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea, since that is the group who historically excelled in those fields and probably have the most interest in that area, while affirmative action type programs seem to hinder the careers of minority students who end up not being able to handle the rigor of engineering, maths, law school, etc.

>UCLA professor Richard H. Sander published an article in the November 2004 issue of the Stanford Law Review that questioned the effectiveness of affirmative action in law schools. The article presents a study that, among other things, shows that half of all black law students rank near the bottom of their class after the first year of law school, and that black law students are more likely to drop out of law school and to fail the bar exam. The article offers a tentative estimate that the production of new black lawyers in the United States would grow by eight percent if affirmative action programs at all law schools were ended, as less qualified black students would instead attend less prestigious schools where they would be more closely matched with their classmates, and thus perform better. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States)

>Does affirmative action hurt minorities? Racial preferences may be setting up many black and Latino law students for failure. [http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe- sand...](http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe- sander26sep26,0,4501633.story)

</comment><comment><USER5> On July 26, 1948, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981. At which time he famously said that if anyone had a problem with it he'd '...see their resignation on his desk in the morning.'

EO 9981 was not simply a political move. Our military strategists saw during WWII that it would be decidedly foolish for us to continue fighting wars with one hand tied behind our backs.

Around this same time, a wave of statutes swept the nation that made it illegal for most Americans under the age of 16 to drop out of High School. Do not suppose that these things are coincidental. They are common sense steps that had to be taken to address the new realities that were rapidly developing in the post WWII world.

The world is today, again, undergoing a process of rapid geopolitical and social change. Strategists deep in the bowels of the American Government have looked into the future, and again, they find themselves wanting to change what they see looking back at them.

FACT: China has more high school honors students than the United States has high school students. That's right. If you take every high school student in the US, the poor students and the good students, China has more students than that in ONLY its high honors programs.

Look, the global economy will be the battlefield of choice in the future. We do not intend to charge onto that battlefield with one hand tied behind our backs.

The only thing wrong with this article, in my opinion, is that it excludes the recruitment of white Americans. We SHOULD be making sweeping policy changes to address these issues. Immigration is not going to get us out of it. I work half the time in Ningbo or Paris myself. How long before Indians and Indonesians figure out that the smart CVs are flowing to China not California? They are not blind.

I feel like Truman, if you have a problem with being more aggressive with American students with respect to instilling the disciplines of math and science, feel free to leave the country. It is past time that we dealt with this.

<comment><USER6> I agree that this should be inclusive of everybody, regardless of ethnicity or gender. The goal is to just have more stem majors. The more diverse the better.

I won't get into the other topics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a serious issue, and thanks for sharing the article. The president of the Mathematical Association of America, David Bressoud, was at the hearing mentioned in the submitted article calling for more programs to encourage women and ethnic minorities to participate in higher education in math. This is an ongoing concern of professional organizations of mathematicians in the United States.

But just as a possibly illuminating contrary view, the controversial article by Philip Greenspun

<http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science>

may be on point here. Maybe there are better opportunities for young people who are being recruited into math and science than the opportunities provided by math and science careers.

(Note on personal background: my oldest son, who is in the process of applying to colleges when he doesn't plan his start-up, intends to major in math and computer science, and has taken upper-division courses in each subject already. But he is not part of the population groups mentioned in the submitted article.)

</comment><comment><USER6> First, this isn't about affirmative action--this isn't about establishing quotas. It's about funding programs that will help attract and _retain_ minority students in stem majors. If you don't understand that key difference, let me know. And if you don't understand the value of such programs, then you fail to realize what it will take for any company or country to compete globally.

Second, there are too many factors at play to just dismiss a student's abilities to start the next google, for example, by just assessing standardized test scores--especially, to assess his/her potential by how well on average his group/ethnicity performs. parse_tree, go back to my first point.

Such programs, I don't think, are intended to have immediate results. The goal is to retain as many people who are interested in stem majors as possible. Yes, but I think the biggest impact will come as a result of their kids having much more exposure and such people understanding the value of such programs that they reach out to others.

Finally, I think a lot would be best spent at an early age--early in a child's development. If you think a person's abilities are tied solely to genetics, you're wrong. Nurture plays an important role, and I've seen enough evidence to support that. Funding programs that compensate for parents not having an adequate education (and thus have to work multiple jobs, don't read enough to kids, etc) to offer their kids a good start.

Quick poll: of all you hackers here, how many had parents in stem majors? How many had parents who went to secondary school? These are much better indicators as to how well a person will do in life than race or gender. Think about it. Many of you played with legos. Did you ask your parents to buy you legos? Or did they buy them for you?

</comment><comment><USER7> That article has a point, but it doesn't serve any purpose other than highlighting a problem we already know about--let's leave the dead horses alone. As a minority (black female), it's nothing new.

> "Attracting students' interest to fields where they have been traditionally > underrepresented is a challenge, Ms. Bozeman said."

It's a challenge for reasons the article doesn't even mention. A certain elementary school I volunteered at during college in DC brings to mind why it might be an issue with minorities. The school was predominantly minority-- hispanics and blacks--and it seemed like the school system had forgotten about the kids. (Yes, we know many DC schools have serious problems.) Some of them didn't know their ABCs, had trouble with numbers, and couldn't even write their own names. Granted this was a kindergarten class, but it wasn't as if my friends and I showed up to volunteer on the first day of school for them either. We asked some of the kids if their parents helped them with their homework, etc. and most of them said no. The school itself lacked basic supplies (no pencils with erasers for kindergartners??). The problem starts _wayyy_ before we've even gotten the kids to the college level and by then, I tend to think it's a little late to be thinking of how to deal with it.

Kids have to be set up earlier than high school and college for this stuff. And I don't mean pulling a _few_ kids aside from each class for academically gifted enrichment activities. There definitely needs to be a wholesale overhaul of education in such a way that all kids think about those kinds of careers.

With that being said, I think the basic premise of the article is flawed, too. I think we're experiencing a brain-drain all across the board and it just happens to be the case where minorities stand out once again. I grew up in a pretty diverse environment (military brat) and I can't say all of my white, asian, and indian friends were flocking to AP Calculus either! lol. As a matter of fact, most of my non-minority friends from high school who were considered by teachers and students alike to be smart actually didn't even go into fields like math or science--they tended to prefer journalism or law-- with the _occasional_ biology major.

This is an issue affecting everybody.

<comment><USER5> So . . . uhhh . . .

What is your suggested solution.

Or are you just telling us that we can never solve our problems, so we should just forget it?

No one here is suggesting that the solution rests with bettering the education of only minorities. Everyone who has made a suggestion, has put forth the idea that we need to better the education of EVERYONE. "Setting up kids early . . ." for this stuff is EXACTLY what everyone is suggesting.

<comment><USER7> On the contrary, my comment definitely didn't say anything about improving only the education of minorities and I definitely didn't say "just forget it." The article _is_ about minorities, though, is it not? And I think, implicitly, the article points at the idea that we do have to address minority education (especially in the greater context of educating everybody) if we want more minority scientists and engineers. My own experience points in that direction and if we could talk to the folks in the article, I'm sure they'd say the same.

I mentioned how the article doesn't necessarily highlight anything new and that it's a problem everybody's facing. Sure, my comment mentioned minority education, but in no way was I insinuating that we only should care about just educating minorities now. That's a torrid oversimplification (and misrepresentation) of anything I said above.

<comment><USER5> So . . . uhh . . .

What is your suggested solution?

Not trying to piss you off. I just think we have a lot of people in this country who point out all sorts of shortcomings, but do not offer potential solutions.

You've still not told us how you would address minority education. Most people seem to fall into the wsprague camp. You have not stated anything, other than the problem.

<comment><USER7> Nope, not pissed off at all. What can we do, though?

\- Change attitudes of kids. We can't continue on this trend where being smart is considered "acting white." Surprisingly, I never got much of that back in grade school because for some reason or another being smart was respectable (and no, I've never been to a private school). That's always been weird in seeing it, though, because I've seen it in _little_ kids. What the heck is a 7 year old supposed to know about "acting white"? In that same vein, we should talk about parents (that kind of thought process had to start somewhere).

\- Change attitudes of parents. A lot of parents need to be more involved. I've seen parents who didn't do so much as to even make sure their kid did his/her homework because the parent didn't know how to do it (among other reasons that are less easy to alleviate such as work schedules). The kids at the elementary school that day confirmed it. There's a big difference between knowing how to do your kid's homework and making sure they at least attempt it. No, my parents had no clue how to do my calculus homework when I was in high school, but they made sure I was doing it, though.

\- Make mincemeat of self-fulfilling prophecies. I think a lot of what happens with black kids and other minorities (some friends have been walking examples of this) is more of a cyclic self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. Nobody around you is doing all that well, nobody around you is really perceived as being all that smart, and so hey, why try to prove anybody wrong? Yes, as crazy as that sounds, years ago I could have listed numerous people who had that exact self-defeating attitude. Obviously, that's not the case for everybody, but it's an attitude more common than a lot of people like to acknowledge. :(

In mentioning the self-fulfilling prophecy idea, that means you' d have to get parents more interested in what their kids were doing at school (and immediately afterschool in a lot of instances); teachers who don't give up easily on minority students (or any student for that matter); and finally, minority students who see education less as a burden of some sort and more of a ticket to a better standard of living.

\- Flat out expect more. Indeed this does go the @wsprague route, but there's a ring of truth to what s/he is saying. I look at what Steve Perry up in Connecticut is doing. ([http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/22/bia.education.success/i...](http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/07/22/bia.education.success/index.html)) He expects more out of his students (and teachers) and they rise to the occasion. The school has a "near-zero dropout rate" and all the graduates go to college. I don't have any stats on what they end up majoring in, but at least they're set up to go to college.

\- Show kids they have options, keep kids informed of them, and encourage them to pursue them. The article with Steve Perry mentions it and I saw it firsthand in high school--minority students getting shuffled into less demanding classes (no AP!) thanks to stereotypes and not having the wherewithal to set themselves up for a more demanding schedule. A lot of kids don't know about the kinds of classes that would set them up to go to college and pursue anything of rigor. Having a guidance counselor offer you a culinary arts course instead of an AP Biology course makes a big difference if you don't know what you could be missing by not taking that AP class.

\- Educational parity. I witnessed my calculus teacher from high school leave my high school for a more affluent high school. Yes, she has more students at that high school, but if you've got a brain drain on a school level, you're going to have it at some point on a county then state then national level. If all the great teachers are clustered at certain schools (and school systems _allow_ this), what happens to the other schools?

I seriously don't have all the answers, but changing the attitudes (about a lot of things) of parents, teachers, and students seems to be a big part of it all. If I'd had a crappy attitude about anything I'd encountered intellectually for the last 5-10 years, I doubt I'd be _here_.

<comment><USER5> OK, those sound good, with the exception of 1 and 3. Higher expectations, ie wsprague doctrine. Educational parity. And holding parents more accountable for how their children are doing.

With respect to 1 and 3, changing kid's attitude is not what school is for. That's the parent's job. Further, and you are probably too young to realize this, but ALL teens have bad attitudes. White, black, or polka dot purple. I am at that unfortunate age where I am obliged to pay both elementary school and University tuition. I can tell you from experience that doing homework and getting good grades are about as important to your AVERAGE teen aged girl as Mom and Dad say they are. And certainly no MORE important.

So when you say that black teens have bad attitudes . . . to a parent this is not entirely surprising. ALL teens have bad attitudes. It is up to parents and teachers to put boots to butts and force education onto what in most cases will be unwilling students. Notice I didn't say that they needed to explain to the student why it is good to get an education. That doesn't work with white kids, and I have no reason to believe that it would work with black kids. Parents and teachers shouldn't negotiate with kids. We should direct them. As wsprague intimated, it is not about kids being satisfied or having fun, or even wanting an education.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Those groups tend to score way below average on standardized math tests. So it doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest this project could end up just pumping up the number of "scientists and mathematicians" by watering down the talent level of the whole field (and doing nothing to increase the number of Ed Wittens, Andrew Wiles, Terry Taos, etc, whom I suspect are a lot more important than 1000 mediocre scientists who scraped by on affirmative action).

<comment><USER3> Evidence for what you say in your comment? Citations, please?

<comment><USER8> SAT Mathematics 2009 average scores per group:

Asian: 587

White: 536

American Indian: 493

Hispanic: 461

Black: 426

Overall: 515

from here: <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125121641858657345.html>

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the reply. Now what you haven't shown here is whether the actual persons who do score high enough to major in math (by the way, is there any evidence how high that is?) have been exhausted in current practice, or whether some (from whatever ethnic group) are turning to other careers. In other words, even if a decade from now there is still an ethnic score gap at high-school-graduating age, there may be some underutilized talented young people among the highest-scoring individuals in the lowest-scoring groups who could beneficially be encouraged to study math. Answering this question takes actual numbers rather than just mean scores--especially because the distribution of scores may not be the same in each ethnic group.

As the other participant who replied to your comment (the parent to this comment) mentioned, causation of the group score gap is still very unclear. This year, the gap is what it is, and it may not be the best use of societal resources to try to boost college-age participation in math classes among students who leave high school scoring near the median standard score level on the SAT. But it might be very worthwhile to systematically improve math instruction in the elementary grades

<http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/fea-kenschaft.pdf>

[http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/ame...](http://www.aft.org/pubs- reports/american_educator/fall99/amed1.pdf)

and that could have a lot to do with narrowing the group gap, that is raising the total number of students in various ethnic groups who learn enough math through high school to be ready to thrive in math courses in college.

From the link you kindly shared:

"Mr. Finn, a former education official in the Reagan administration, said he expected the results of the SAT and ACT -- another college entrance exam -- to add fuel to a movement among the nation's governors and school superintendents to come up with consistent national standards for high-school curricula."

And from further on in the same article:

"Noting the gap in achievement between lower-performing minority students and the general population, College Board officials said those who lagged tended to go to school in poorer districts with fewer resources. 'As a country, we must do better providing students of every background access to the best education,' Mr. Caperton said."

Yes, I think there are a currently a lot of laggard high schools--and I shouldn't have to tell any participant familiar with American society what kind of neighborhoods the worst high schools are concentrated in--that do a bad job of teaching math, so it's high time to improve math teaching throughout K-12 schooling in the United States.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mr. Castillo-Chavez, the texas congressman who is so concerned about math and science degrees, has a bachelor's and master's in business administration. I was a little surprised - usually the politicians fretting about the scarcity of Americans in science are lawyers.

A recent study by the RAND institute concluded that pay for science and engineering graduates has been lagging badly behind other professions, and that the low interest of Americans in these fields will change once pay catches up.

Like that Onion article: "study finds 98% of commuters favor public transportation for others." Seems the same for science and engineering careers.

Maybe we need a real role model. When Barak Obama speaks, people listen, and when our president emphasized the importance of science careers, I'm certain that he inspired hundreds of thousands of minority students in America to one day become lawyers who encourage engineering degrees for others.

</comment><comment><USER2> And one more thing!!

We always need to remember that there are subtle ways that students get sorted into "smart" and "not-smart", even when we are trying to be objective:

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

</comment><comment><USER10> Huh, they've got plenty of Asians and Jews already. What are they complaining about?

 _Looks at article_

Oh, "underrepresented minority students." That's the code that colleges use to tell Chinese and Korean students that they don't get any affirmative action money. We didn't mean _that_ kind of minority.

The sort of minority they want is the kind that is bad at math and science. After all, it'll be any day now that we figure out how to stop Blacks and Hispanics from under-performing in every intellectual field of endeavor. And then we'll have more of them than anyone else!</comment>


3-D Printed Statues in Central Park Shine a Light on Women Scientists - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/3_d-printed-statues-shine-a-light-on-women-scientists-in-central-park <comment><USER2> Hopefully there's a sane way to recover/recycle the plastic used in these kinds of larger prints, especially if it starts to see widespread commercial application— thinking character statues in cinema lobbies to replace cardboard cutouts. I suppose it's nothing compared to all the plastic popcorn buckets and drink lids, but it still feels like it would be significant if they were printing a new display for each new major release.

<comment><USER3> Really? People are trying to raise awareness of underrepresented people and your concern is about the plastic they used for a few statues? So we should use cardboard for statues of black people while all the white dudes get stone and metal?

<comment><USER2> I think it's great; I said that elsewhere in the thread. I'm just acknowledging that should this become a more widespread trend, it would be nice to figure out a full lifecycle for these prints upfront rather than after thousands of them have been sent to landfill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There isn't a shortage of women who have made huge contributions in STEM. I would think if their goal was to inspire, they would have chosen from them, instead of everyday workers. It strikes me as kind of weird to erect statues of everyday people.

<comment><USER5> I think they wanted to pick relatable scientists, not just inspirational ones. Ironically, this itself has inspirational effects. I know that I myself was more inspired by stories from average physicists than by Einstein or Feynman. It says that you don't have to be a super-genius or super-lucky to follow your science dreams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It seems that none of the 6 scientists passed the notability criteria of Wikipedia? I can't seem to find their Wikipedia page.

I would have made more sense to pick famous female scientists maybe?

<comment><USER7> From the article:

 _Their subjects are still living. They depict women of color who are working scientists. Their images are intended to inspire girls to pursue STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) careers. In the language of the sponsoring project, #IfThenSheCan: "if she can see it, then she can be it."_

More about the goals of the project: [https://www.aaas.org/news/125-women- stem-selected-aaas-ifthe...](https://www.aaas.org/news/125-women-stem- selected-aaas-ifthen-ambassadors)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Overall, it doesn't feel great we delegated these statues to 3d printing.

<comment><USER2> It's a good start, though. :) And for a temporary, pop-up exhibition, it's neat to demonstrate an application for 3D printing.

<comment><USER8> A good start to what end? Who gives a shit about 3D printing when it comes to making statues? The point is obviously not to pimp the technology.

<comment><USER2> The "good start" is that an individual or small group were able to go from concept to display in a shorter period of time with these, and for relatively low cost. Hopefully there's interest and support for redoing one or more of them in permanent materials. I can definitely see this as a more promising start than spending years in committees fighting over the details and funding for a conventional statue that might never see the light of day.

Anyway, this is just a preview— the full exhibition includes 122 such statues. So it's also a good start in that regard. :)

<comment><USER8> Since when has art been judged on time to creation or volume or cost? This seems to be solving a problem sculpting doesn't have to begin with. I agree that this could be a boon to creation but I hardly see these samples as decent examples....

<comment><USER2> The point is the art that never has a chance to be judged because it never gets created on account of these barriers.

<comment><USER8> I consider that an emphatic benefit looking at these statues. Why couldn't they have hired a sculptor?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Video: 10 Years of Fires on Earth Seen From Space - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/wildfires-space-nasa <comment><USER2> That's pretty sweet. The spread of the greenery in the summer, followed by its retreat in the winter, makes it look like the earth is breathing.

It would be great if the underlying color images are available for download.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a large swathe of fires in the northern sub Sahara every December. Any explanation for this ? I found the page below which shows a picture month by month

[http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003870/index.h...](http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003800/a003870/index.html)

edit: found it at [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/modis-10-overvi...](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/modis-10-overview.html)

"The global fire data show that Africa has more abundant burning than any other continent. MODIS observations have shown that some 70 percent of the world's fires occur in Africa. During a fairly average burning season from July through September 2006, the visualizations show a huge outbreak of savanna fires in Central Africa driven mainly by agricultural activities, but also driven by lightning strikes."

</comment><comment><USER4> I guess the majority of these fires are caused by lightning. There are some 16 million lightning storms in the world every year[1], or about 44,000 every day. An interesting video of lightning seen from the Space Shuttle during night time orbit of Earth: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6RxE-f2iyQ>

The Wired video is also interesting because it shows the expanding and contracting areas of frost and vegetation.

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

</comment><comment><USER5> Too fast. They really had to cram it into one minute? Amazingly well done, but what a pity. Would love to watch at least the YouTube 10 minute limit of this stuff, if not more.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how much co2 these "tens of millions" of fires emit vs global human energy consumption.

<comment><USER7> Net-net, probably not much. The fires represent biomass, and at best, with the oldest living trees, represent carbon sequestered 10,000 years ago. By comparison, most petroleum deposits were formed from biomass several millions of years ago. And that is the problem with fossil-fuel based carbon release: we've returned, in a matter of decades, carbon that was removed from the biosphere over millions of years.

The mean age of carbon released by forest fires is probably far lower than the 10,000 year maximum. Tree lifecycles typically range in the 100s of years, shrubs in the decades, and grasslands are perennial.

Too: following a burn, many areas see a greatly accelerated growth of flora, driven by many characteristics: minerals and nutrients liberated by the burn, greater incident sunlight, and less competition from old-growth plants.

Of course in the case of ag land clearing, much of this goes out the window.

<comment><USER7> Erm: grasses have an annual cycle. They may be "annuals" (dying each year) or perennial, but the bulk of their biomass is regenerated annually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I get a little spooked out by any visualization that makes real life look like a somewhat more complex Minecraft.</comment>