Training crows to pick up cigarette butts for food - <AUTHOR> http://www.crowdedcities.com <comment><USER2> Back in college I did a paper on if this was ethical or not for my bioethics class, I warn people to really take a step back from the positive possibilities with something like this and understand that these are wild animals being trained to become slaves to benefit our human failings and appetites.

I would definitely draw a line between this kind of domestication and the domestication of animals by our ancestors for our own survival. This is trash created by humans, and the human responsible should be the asshole who picks it up. At that point, we're the ones that should be domesticated, not crows.

<comment><USER3> Would you also object to training the mice that infest our houses to also engage in activities we consider useful? Perhaps say, training them to do their business outside?

I mean, to describe the animals, like crows or racoons, which live in cities and consume human detritus, as "wild" seems like somethings of a misstatement - I'm not sure what the best term would be but "feral", "parasitic" or "coadapted" are seem equally good. Training animals in an environment that's otherwise untouched by humans seems bad for the "naturalness" of said environment but situation seems no more invasive than spaying feral cats.

Indeed, if anyone is worried about the human domination of nature, they can take comfort that schemes like this should further raise the intelligence of crows to the point they'll have a shot at overthrowing the unjust reign of we naked apes.

<comment><USER2> > they can take comfort that schemes like this should further raise the > intelligence of crows to the point they'll have a shot at overthrowing the > unjust reign of we naked apes.

Here's the thing I think you're missing with this statement though, our rise to intelligence had nothing to do with a superior species endowing us with a head start. In fact, for early man it might have hobbled us to not be challenged because we're "really good at picking up cigarette butts".

Also, do you want to be the one that explains to the super-intelligent crows how we used them to pick up garbage?

<comment><USER3> It would be pretty much impossible for another intelligent species to appear on earth now without relating to human beings as a context. I mean, the relationship I was groping for above is Synanthrope[1]. Basically, an entire ecosystem of animals eating and using human garbage already exists - what else do you imagine these animal eat? Giving animals some training to also pick-up said garbage seems neither better nor worse than the status quo.

Plus, I don't think anyone will be doing any explaining to the crows - if the crows rise, they're be using fire and poison to exterminate them in the fashion we would use if one another species seemed to threaten our dominance.

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

<comment><USER4> Unless we create them. There will always be a point that the apex predators fail to recognize the threat until it is too late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bonus points when the crows learn they can speed up the process by dive bombing a smoker, causing them to run away in terror, dropping their cigarette in the process.

<comment><USER6> Magpies already dive bomb everyone in Australia so they're 50% there

<comment><USER7> Did they learn the technique by watching the drop bears?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seems neat, but cigarette butts contain toxic chemicals. Training birds to perform an action, but at the same time possibly poison themselves, is ethically perverse. What if their population collapses because of the exposure to something in the butts? (and perhaps this effects other parts of the ecosystem dependent on the services of crows ... like, but not limited to, mitigating hygiene hazards via carcass removal).

Maybe we could train the people to pick up their own butts.

<comment><USER9> Birds have already been observed to use cigarette butts for nest building, and no resultant population crash has happened for them.

[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138655-birds-use- cigar...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/2138655-birds-use-cigarette- butts-for-chemical-warfare-against-ticks/)

Maybe the food being given to the crows is more beneficial than any of the downsides of the exposure to the butts.

<comment><USER10> If you read through to a linked article you'll find there is indeed long term health effects to the birds [https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730341-600-birds- lo...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730341-600-birds-love-of- cigarette-butts-in-nests-has-two-sides-for-chicks/)

<comment><USER9> I never said there weren't. I specifically worded my comment to suggest that the benefits might outweigh the harm.

<comment><USER11> For instance, if the crows are picking up enough, then there will be less birds using them for nesting material, which is a more prolonged exposure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > When we started doing research we found out there is a guy in the States > that is teaching crows to collect coins. His name is Joshua Klein.

It's commonly agreed that this never worked successfully in the wild.

> In that correction the NY Times states that the experiments never succeeded > in teaching the crows to drop the coins into the slot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Klein#Crows](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Klein#Crows)

> Klein did get a professor at Binghamton to help him try it out twice in > Ithaca, with assistance from a Binghamton graduate student, and it was not a > success. Corvid experts who have since been interviewed have said that > Klein's machine is unlikely to work as intended.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t- CORRE...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/magazine/12letters-t- CORRECTIONS-1.html)

<comment><USER3> Coins seem like they'd very difficult for a bird to handle - they're heavy for their volume and can't be bitten into.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> As a thought experiment, imagine if this mutually beneficial behaviour went on for hundreds/thousands of years to the point that the animals lost their insincts for hunting/finding food independently. It would be a disaster if suddently humans changed the conditions of the relationship by, for example, outlawing cigarettes in favour of vaping.

Does anyone know of any real-world examples of this happening? The only ones I can think of are the domestication of cats, dogs and pigs, but left to their own devices those animals revert to their natural behaviour fairly quickly.

Edit:

I found this quote unbelievable; "Cigarettes are the most littered item on earth. Worldwide about 4.5 trillion cigarettes are littered each year." That's 650 for every person on the planet.

<comment><USER14> > I found this quote unbelievable

4.5 trillion does sound like a lot.

One source said there were 5.8 trillion cigarettes smoked globally in 2014. There's no way most of those get littered.... right?

<comment><USER15> > One source said there were 5.8 trillion cigarettes smoked globally in 2014. > There's no way most of those get littered.... right?

Given my observation of people's smoking habits and the locations (or, mostly, not) of public facilities for the disposal of cigarettes, I'd say it's quite plausible that most got literates but only between 1/5 - 1/4 were smoked in a place where there was convenient access for disposal by someone who cared to use it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This may also train smokers who do throw away their butts to instead think it's ok to throw them anywhere.

<comment><USER17> Yeah... the callousness of smokers and their littering is unacceptable. I understand that throwing your cigarette in the trash can be a fire hazard sometimes, but put the cigarette out and throw it out. Some smokers just seem to love flicking that still-burning cigarette into the road like it's no big deal.

<comment><USER18> Smoker in San Francisco here. I've thought about this quite a bit and here's my dilemma.

1\. It is illegal to smoke indoors

2\. San Francisco has made it illegal to have ash trays outdoors

3\. Cigarettes set trash on fire so it's not acceptable to put them in the bin

4\. Cigarettes have a tax on every pack earmarked to fund street clean-up

I'd prefer to not throw my cigarettes on the ground, but I've been left with no real alternative. Also, I've specifically paid a tax that should fund that clean-up.

<comment><USER19> Put them out and put them in the garbage, your pocket, or a plastic bag.

When people go out to a national park they don't just throw trash on the ground because "I paid an entry fee that should fund the clean up."

<comment><USER18> I think what I've mention already should outline the impracticality of your suggestion. It's hard to distinguish between a cigarette that's fully extinguished or not. This is why ashtrays are made of glass or contain sand, you can't set it on fire. Smokers are easy to demonize when you don't understand their dilemmas. Don't worry we're pretty used to it. Most smokers I know understand their habit bothers people and do their best to not cause a burden on others. When society has set up rules that make it impossible to do something properly, don't be surprised when people don't.

<comment><USER20> So smush it properly with your shoe and then put it in your pocket until you get home or find a worthy receptacle. If I have a granola bar wrapper in my hand and there's no trash cans nearby, I don't throw it on the ground; I hold it in my hand/pocket/bag until I can dispose of it. Cigarette filters are not a special case in this thinking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Also [http://www.thecrowbox.com/](http://www.thecrowbox.com/) were they apparently trained captive crows to pickup coins in return for food, there's also a TED talk the guy behind it gave.

I've briefly looked at the 'Crowded Cities' page, I'm still not sure how the crows realise they get food though for cigarette butts? Does it rely on them randomly dropping something in the pot, and then getting food and continuing to do it?

<comment><USER22> Didn't it turn out that guy faked his results?

<comment><USER23> I don't think I would go so far as to say he faked his data. But he did intentional misrepresent his work to the press and during the TED talk to boost his own status/ego.

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/corvidresearch.blog/2015/03/12/...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/corvidresearch.blog/2015/03/12/a-scientists- thoughts-on-the-crow-box/amp/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They're smart enough to find cigarette butts wherever they are, not just the ground. I predict you'd see a lot of crows stealing lit cigarettes and emptying ashtrays etc.

<comment><USER25> Crows are really smart. If anyone is interested, here's a PBS Nature doc about crows.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJKPwIFzDI](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hBJKPwIFzDI)

They even transfer knowledge between each other and through generations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Or you know, we could get rid of cigarettes. Oh wait but what will happen to all the crow jobs?!

<comment><USER27> Didn't work so well for alcohol, drugs, or prostitution unfortunately.

But at least I guess it would stop people smoking in public.

<comment><USER28> > Didn't work so well for alcohol, drugs, or prostitution unfortunately.

I'm pretty sure it will work out once the surveillance methods are more advanced and ubiquitous. And no, I don't think it's a good thing.

<comment><USER27> Good point, we've come a long way since prohibition times for better and for worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if this will be the beginning of crow-sourcing.

</comment><comment><USER30> I think this idea is really cool, but monitization might be an issue. No individual or private company, except those with enormous sites like Boeing and Google would be potential customers, because the decrease of cigarette butts would be spread over possibly a mile radius (interested to see what the actual statistics would be though). Of course, the idea then is to target municipalities of dense downtown areas. Is buying, maintaining, powering, and repairing this machine worth the handful of cigarette butts that would otherwise be washed into a drainage ditch or picked up by a street sweeper?

</comment><comment><USER31> Cool and thought-provoking idea! I was struck by this statement however:

 _Right now we are building our first Crowbar. All different parts are working and ready for assembly. Next step: testing with Crows._

Why not start with crow testing? That's the "Talk to customers" of this project [0]. Instead, they started off with something we can be sure of with today's technology: machine recognising cigarette butts.

[0] Technically talking to city authorities should be the first step, but I couldn't tell whether this was a for-profit project.

</comment><comment><USER32> Couldn't we just force cigarette companies to make cigarettes biodegrade in the rain? Seriously, they're basically all chemicals anyways. After a few years the problem would vanish.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder what other tasks we could train species to do in exchange for something they want? For instance, cane toads are invasive and toxic enough that predators usually leave them alone. Supposing that cane toads can be deposited in a receptacle by some bird who wouldn't otherwise eat it without being harmed by the toxin, could they be used to eradicate cane toads in places where they're not wanted in exchange for food?

<comment><USER34> A fellow trained his cat to "hunt" whiffle balls around the apartment so it would have a chance to, well, act like a cat for its food. Sort of. It's neat, anyway.

[http://benjaminmillam.com/cat-geek/monkey-the-cat-hunts- for-...](http://benjaminmillam.com/cat-geek/monkey-the-cat-hunts-for-dinner/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm too lazy to build this myself but a similar system to encourage pet owners to dispose of pet waste at the park by exchanging dog poop for a treat.

</comment><comment><USER36> Now I'm picturing a murder of crows on their smoke break.

</comment><comment><USER37> My evil plan was to make peanut-butter vending machines for raccoons.

I figured you'd have to trap a few and show them how it worked then release them to spread the word, so to speak.

</comment><comment><USER38> I seem to remember back in the 70s and early 80s, cigarette butts being everywhere was a problem, then for awhile, they disappeared, like smokers got trained not to throw them on the ground. But lately, they seem to be back, like new smokers came up without remembering what it was like in the 70s and 80s, and they just throw them on the ground again.

</comment><comment><USER39> I wounder if this would work for other corvids as well, like say, ravens or magpies. As I understand, magpies are also rather intelligent. I can imagine crows and magpies getting into fights over who gets to take the cigarette butt to the food dispensing machine.

</comment><comment><USER40> Have any of these stations been deployed so far? Interesting idea!

</comment><comment><USER17> LOL I had this same exact idea once but with pigeons... I can't wait to show my wife/stupid-idea-confidant this. I love it

</comment><comment><USER41> I take it this hasn't be proven or demonstrated yet?

</comment><comment><USER42> Breaking News: Murder of Crows Commit Murder. You won't believe why!

</comment><comment><USER43> Why aren't we ticketing / fining people who litter in this way? To all the hippocrite smoking environmentalists, I say F U.</comment>


The Ultimate Paper Airplane: Japan's Bid to Launch a Paper Airplane from the Space Station - <AUTHOR> http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/The_Ultimate_Paper_Airplane.htmlhttp://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/The_Ultimate_Paper_Airplane.html

<comment><USER2> Broken link in the submission - here is the actual link:

[http://www.airspacemag.com/space- exploration/The_Ultimate_Pa...](http://www.airspacemag.com/space- exploration/The_Ultimate_Paper_Airplane.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Shoot, sorry about that.

<comment><USER2> It happens.</comment></comment></comment>


How did you start learning about tech entrepreneurship? - <AUTHOR> I decided a few months ago to spend my last summer before graduation (Undergraduate CS) learning about tech entrepreneurship. My current plan is to learn by developing a simple product. However, after a few months of exploring MVP ideas, I'm starting to feel unsure about the direction I'm taking.
With that in mind, how did you start learning about tech entrepreneurship? Is there any advice you would have given yourself when you were first starting out?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Don't think about entrepreneurship. Think about things that interest you. Immerse yourself in those things and make as many strong connections as possible to others interested in the same things. Take advantage of the fact that you are in school where it is much easier to meet other motivated people. Opportunities will then start to present themselves.</comment>


Ask HN: Where do you host your webapp? - <AUTHOR>

Which web hosting provider do you use? <comment><USER2> EC2 or anything I have sudo on really. The Heroku's and Azure's of this world aren't my thing (although I have used them). 10 lines in a .sh and you have yourself a heroku-esque push to build scenario and if something breaks, guess what? You can actually log onto the server and fix it!

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't a webapp just like any website?</comment>


How we're fixing pricing - <AUTHOR> http://dailycred.tumblr.com/post/35311219235/we-f-ed-up-pricing-heres-how-were-fixing-it

<comment><USER2> I don't see evidence in that article that the new pricing is better than the old. Did you test how well it performs before announcing that it is "fixed" now? Don't get me wrong, the reasoning for these changes makes some sense, but without validation that it really converts better now, it simply cannot be called "fixed".

<comment><AUTHOR> The motivation for the change came from chatting with people looking at the site, and hearing strong reluctance from some about having to pay to evaluate the service.

The pattern we hear is that often people want to get it running in a sample app or side project so they can get a feel for it - even if their motivation is to eventually use it with their larger site.

The more precise quantitative results of the change will come now that the pricing change is public. We should do a followup in a week.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not-so-insightful article but an interesting service provided by the company. With cloud-based APIs to handle things like DBs (Parse), files (Filepicker.io) and now auth (Dailycred), one can just pretty much do everything on the client-side.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd be curious about the decision between freemium (free plan) vs free trial - what was the process for choosing to use freemium? That's something I talk about with lots of founders, and there are specific reasons freemium works well for us at Buffer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Our motivation with the free plan is to let people who are interested evaluate the service. We tried a 30day free trial, but we heard from some users that they really didn't want to put in a credit card to sign up at first, and some didn't think it was enough time.

By charging more as the number of users grows it ties the cost to the actual value they're getting. With the free tier at 50 users, we think that gives everyone a chance to try it out without giving away the farm.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We've added a temporary coupon code "take2" so if you sign up today it will lock in a 50% off price. (a very good reason to make an account today) It's totally free while you're developing, up to 50 user accounts.

Let me know if you have any questions about the service!</comment>


Hunter Walk on disruption - david-usds https://medium.com/the-u-s-digital-service/disrupting-with-love-a-conversation-with-hunter-walk-4ae55c8d968c#.fj1nlfsmz <comment> david-usds > The same way capital can be a force multiplier on your idea, diversity is a > force multiplier on your ability to achieve success.

(Another test comment on a test story submission for records management purposes)

</comment><comment> david-usds > Those in the tech community have a responsibility to their country.

Completely agree.

(Test comment on a test story submission for records management purposes.)</comment>


Show HN: Simple user authentication for web apps - <AUTHOR> https://restdb.io/blog/#!posts/57cece1a2d5dbc27000000d3 <comment><USER2> Because this is a blog post rather than something that people can play with or try out, it does not really meet the spirit of 'Show HN'.

Show HN guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> There is a link in the blogpost, where you can play around: [https://myapp-7175.restdb.io/public/index](https://myapp-7175.restdb.io/public/index)

You can also get the code from Github here and set it up yourself: [https://github.com/RestDB/clientexamples/tree/master/Auth0%2...](https://github.com/RestDB/clientexamples/tree/master/Auth0%20integration)

<comment><USER2> Maybe the post would do better as a regular submission.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What project management tool does your team use? - <AUTHOR> I'm evaluating project management tools (asana, airtable, clickup, monday, etc.) for a startup of 10 people, across engineering and business teams. Would like to know what teams are using.<p>* What tool and what kind of team? Pros and cons of the tool?<p>* Is it easy to learn for non tech-savvy users?<p>* Does the tool let you see dependencies between tasks? Something like a gantt chart. <comment><USER2> All the above tools pretty much do the same, I'd suggest you not to spend time over-analysing the tools and just pick what you are comfortable in using.

In fact I've found spreadsheets to offer better productivity when I was running a startup of 5 people.

<comment><USER3> I agree. We were using a shared Google Sheet in a 5 people team (3 devs, 1 manager and 1 product owner).

Worked great. However, not sure if it is "scalable" when more people join.

<comment><USER2> Here is one such product that I think might interest you - [https://www.freshworks.com/agile-project-management- software...](https://www.freshworks.com/agile-project-management-software/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Teamwork Projects Used across various teams in the company, from support, marketing, HR and developers. Also has Gantt chart but I've never used that much</comment>


Which compiler to use for implementing code optimization ideas - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,<p>I am currently in grad school and had some code optimization ideas and wonder which compiler I should use to implement them. My first approach with modifying GCC was kind of discouraching as I found the source to be super complex and hard to modify. Can you share your mind? <comment><USER2> LLVM is a far, far superior platform for hacking than GCC.

<http://www.llvm.org>

<http://clang.llvm.org>

also, subscribe to llvm and cfe-dev mailing lists.

</comment><comment><USER3> Do not waste any time with gcc - go get LLVM and start hacking. It is a clear, clean, well-designed architecture with a lot of optimization passes already implemented, and there's a complete C front-end (called Clang) which either already does or is soon going to support C++ as well.

<comment><USER4> Clang's C++ support is considered to be production quality as of 2.8.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks guys! I will see how it works

</comment><comment><USER5> try tiny c compiler</comment>


Leaf PHP Framework - <AUTHOR> https://leafphp.netlify.app <comment><USER2> It's interesting that the different components are separated into Leaf, Leaf MVC, and Leaf UI. Would an apt analogy of the targeted niche for leave be as follows?

Leaf is to Laravel as Flask is to Django

It seems like the components of Leaf are more independently silo'ed and can be used separately.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Create clean, simple but powerful web applications and APIs quickly.</comment>


Airbnb Launches Sublets - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/09/01/airbnb-expands-into-monthly-rentals/

<comment><USER2> I love the way you guys offer $100 dollars for new signups and $200 off longterm sublets. Such a great way to get people excited to use the site. My dad has done rental properties for years so I've watched as the market has evolved. What you guys are doing and the way you are doing it is epic!</comment>


Show HN: Quicksy – Jabber with phone number verification and contact discovery - <AUTHOR> https://quicksy.im <comment><USER2> This looks like a nice way to get your non technical friends onto the federated network, and shows that xmpp really isn't behind centralized silo messengers in functionality and usability.

<comment><USER3> Most siloed messengers _are_ XMPP.

<comment><USER2> Some siloed messengers offer some subset of XMPP connectivity.

However, we need to differentiate multiple aspects here:

\- _does the messenger allow users to use an XMPP client?_ This was possible on Facebook messenger for a while but was discontinued.

\- _does the messenger allow users to talk to XMPP users on other servers?_ This used to be possible with GTalk, but only if you didn't install Hangouts and only if the other server allowed unencrypted communication (which they typically don't since at least 2013). It's possible with Cisco and was possible with Lync/Skype for Business, but only after convincing your domain admin to whitelist the remote server.

\- _is it using XMPP under the hood?_ WhatsApp used to, before they mutilated the protocol. [https://xmpp.org/uses/gaming.html](https://xmpp.org/uses/gaming.html) lists some online gaming platforms that are technically XMPP, but it doesn't really matter for the users.

Quicksy answers to all these questions with a clear "yes", giving its users (and their friends!) more choices than any other phone number based IM system.

<comment><USER3> I don't disagree with anything you've said, maybe my point wasn't clear though.

The post I replied to said:

> shows that xmpp really isn't behind centralized silo messengers in > functionality and usability.

The siloed systems using non-federated XMPP (possibly with some private extensions) shows that it's technically very capable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why is there a 4.99EUR fee to get an external jabber id listed?

<comment><USER5> > We charge a small fee to enter your Jabber ID and phone number into our > directory. This cross financing allows us to make Quicksy completely free > for its users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> How is it different from JMP.chat ?

<comment><USER2> JMP.chat gives you a new phone number that you use via XMPP, with Quicksy you use your phone number to automatically discover other users on the (federated) xmpp network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not having end to end encryption is sad.

<comment><AUTHOR> But it has. It is enabled by default</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Method/Tool to test if a link has already been submitted to HN - <AUTHOR>

I'm a long time observer to HN and just starting to comment and submit.  I'm wondering if a method or tool exists to test if a url has already been submitted to HN.  I've tried using the url as a search parameter for HN but with no luck.  I'm imagining the ability to paste the url (that I intend to submit) into a box, click a button and be told if it is a duplicate.  Thanks. <comment><USER2> If the URL is identical to one that has already been submitted, your submission will count as an up-vote to the original post.

<comment><AUTHOR> Excellent, thanks for the clarification.</comment></comment>


HTTP Cats - <AUTHOR> http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/

<comment><USER2> So, there's definitely been a few discussion recently about the quality of Hacker News articles and their relevancy to the community. Is this post an indication that LOLCats are of high priority for discussion?

<comment><USER3> It's a honeypot article. Upvote it and your upvotes count less. Flag it, and your flags count more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few of mine,

403: [https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/imag...](https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/images/errors/403.jpg)

404: [https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/imag...](https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/images/errors/404.jpg)

405: [https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/imag...](https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/images/errors/405.jpg)

500: [https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/imag...](https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/images/errors/500.jpg)

503: [https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/imag...](https://github.com/tantalor/emend/raw/master/app/static/images/errors/503.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER5> This would be so much easier if the status codes on the index just linked to the actual pages.

<comment><USER6> I'll keep this up for a day.

<http://oinksoft.com/http-cats.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In case the original author shows up here: on first glance, the index page looks like an error page. Perhaps a little formatting or color so I don't assume the server is down and hit back immediately?

<comment><USER8> Thanks for the feedback. This was something I did quickly for some friends, so I didn't add any style to it. Never thought that it would get popular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you want this minus the cats (and with more features), try <http://httpstat.us/>

<comment><USER10> <http://httpstat.us/404> dumps the actual code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just in case you want something more full featured (think IP, COOKIES, POST, GZIP, STREAMS, etc...) check out <http://httpbin.org/> from the same guy that brought sanity to http requests in Python: <http://kennethreitz.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I love Heroku, LOLcats, and HTTP so I am very disappointed in myself right now for not thinking of this. Nice work, sir.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not mine, just stumbled on it. My favorite: <http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/418>

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like this one: <http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/599>

</comment><comment><USER14> None of these actually issue the HTTP status code claimed: they're just linked to pages with images.

      Request URL:http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/404
      Request Method:GET
      Status Code:200 OK

<comment><USER8> That's the point. And it's not linked to "pages with images". It actually just returns the image as Content-Type header field reveals :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> So great! And then you plussed it with an Easter Egg (418)!

<comment><USER16> That's not an Easter egg; it's a legitimate status code from RFC 2324 (April 1, 1998):

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_418>

<comment><USER17> That doesn't make it not an easter egg, though. Most 'easter eggs' function perfectly for what they are, they're just also amusing and not entirely necessary.

<comment><USER18> You, sir, have just found the perfect nickname for my girlfriend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> +1 for my favorite code:

<http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/418>

418: I'm a TeaPot

<comment><USER20> isn't 418 from the HTCPCP specification, rather then HTTP?

<comment><USER3> The Flickr discussion made the same point. The conclusion was that pictures of cats are meant to be amusing rather than literal expressions of a single IETF standard.

<comment><USER21> Amen to that. People need to seriously lighten up. My favourite: <http://httpcats.herokuapp.com/426>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A gist to load all HTTP cats in your browser: <http://bit.ly/vS19gp>

</comment><comment><USER23> Cats. Seriously?

<comment><USER24> I'm wondering what's so special here too. And don't get me wrong I love cats. In fact I literally just brought home two little kittens :)</comment></comment>


Portugal's anti-euro Left banned from power - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11949701/AEP-Eurozone-crosses-Rubicon-as-Portugals-anti-euro-Left-banned-from-power.html <comment><USER2> This is serious: "Democracy must take second place to the higher imperative of euro rules and membership."</comment>


Cal 3 Initiative Approved for Statewide Ballot in November - <AUTHOR> https://cal3.com/ <comment><USER2> Lol, this is a good way to waste a bunch of money.</comment>


Can planes be tied in knots in higher dimensions the way lines can in 3D? - <AUTHOR> http://www.askamathematician.com/2016/02/q-can-planes-sheets-be-tied-in-knots-in-higher-dimensions-the-way-lines-strings-can-be-tied-in-knots-in-3-dimensions/ <comment><USER2> As a matter of fact, yes, planes _can_ be tied in knots.

Here's a page from "Knotted Surfaces and Their Diagrams" by J. Scott Carter: [http://i.imgur.com/2rIKJ8E.png](http://i.imgur.com/2rIKJ8E.png)

</comment><comment><USER3> Need someone's insight: Isn't klein bottle a 3D knot?

<comment><USER4> No, a Klein bottle is a 4d moebius strip.

<comment><USER5> A Möbius strip has a boundary. What is the boundary of a Klein bottle?

<comment><USER6> The surface.

<comment><USER5> The surface itself is the Klein bottle, so I would expect its boundary to be some 1-dimensional object, in the same way the boundary of a disk is the circle surrounding it.

<comment><USER7> A Mobius strip is a twisted non-orientable 2D surface that exists in 3 dimensions, with a 1D edge.

A Klein bottle is a twisted non-orientable 3D volume that exists in 4 dimensions, with a 2D "edge" surface.

<comment><USER8> You get a Klein bottle from Möbius strip by identifying the boundary 1-cell with itself (plus a twist, whatever). It is not a "3d volume"; there is no 3-cell involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> this seems to hinge on a peculiar definition of a knot.

<comment><USER10> its a mathematical knot, which is essentially definable as a loop of "string" that has crossings that cannot be removed (ie the loop returned to a normal doughnut shape/torus) via any sort of transformation that doesn't involve cutting it.

the trefoil in the article is an example of such a thing.

Most knots we encounter in every day life are not a knot in a mathematical sense, because they can be untied, or don't form a loop.

<comment><USER11> I'm not familiar with the subject, so I don't quite get that last sentence. It seems to me like most knots I encounter in everyday life is similar to this one: [http://www.nationbydesign.com/simple- knot.jpg](http://www.nationbydesign.com/simple-knot.jpg)

This, to me, seems like a knot that cannot be removed via any sort of transformation that doesn't involve cutting it, assuming that the piece of string has no ends and continues forever.

Is my understanding of a knot in the mathematical sense wrong? Or of the involved transformations? If so, can you elaborate?

<comment><USER12> Your understanding is fairly correct, but it is mathematically easier/nicer to tie the ends together rather than let them run to infinity. That guarantees that you describe exactly how the ends would 'continue forever', and fits better with topology.

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

<comment><USER13> Eh, putting a point at infinity (where the ends terminate) is hardly an obstacle to a mathematician. :)

<comment><USER12> \- not all topologies have infinity.

\- 'Continue forever' is vague. You will have to specify the direction, as that can affect the knot you get.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Surely a plane can be tied in a knot in R^3 (like a sheet of paper, a blanket) - and therefore trivially so in higher dimensions?

<comment><USER15> Any such knot could be topologically deformed into a knot made of arbitrarily thin plane segment, which would end up being the same as a line knot. So knots made out of finite plane segments are uninteresting.

<comment><USER14> I should have been more clear though, I was imagining an infinite 'blanket', which I grab in the 'middle' (not an end) and tie a knot there.

Or does that not count as (mathematical) knotting?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Are there any (practical or theoretical) applications for theories of knots in higher dimensional spaces?

</comment><comment><USER16> > Ordinary knots (that you can tie with string) can only exist in exactly 3 > dimensions.

Or a higher dimensional space.

<comment><USER2> In a 4-dimensional space, 1-dimensional knots are trivially untied, because you can pass strings through strings by "lifting" the string into fourth dimension (strings can "pass through" each other).

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Yes

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airplane_art_1.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Airplane_art_1.jpg)

<comment><USER18> Surely you can't be serious.

<comment><USER19> I am, and don't call me Shirley.</comment></comment></comment>


Human beings are not computers - <AUTHOR> http://theenergyproject.com/key-ideas <comment><USER2> The ideas are correct, but this

> We're at our best when we move between expending energy and intermittently > renewing our four core energy needs

will be hand waved as hogwash and feeling goods hr practices until they start putting some numbers behind the claim

sadly it seems nobody is able to do research anymore, or even read old research. Most of it has to relearned at every new generation of CEOs coming in offices, at about 20-30 years cycles.

you can find a lot of it in the 40s, 60s, 80s, etc. now we're just about at the end of yet another 'resource extraction' cycle, where managers (who just got bonuses pushing people into unsustainable working hours) are looking for reasons why productivity dropped across the board and how to bring it back up

look at the references at the bottom of this study (which mostly colorize graphs and reword sentences, but still) [http://danzpage.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/05/Construction-...](http://danzpage.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/05/Construction-Management- Resources_Calculating_Loss_of_Productivity_Due_to_OT_Using_Charts_- _Nov_2001.pdf)

not included, but more or less same conclusions [http://www.awci.org/cd/pdfs/8107_b.pdf](http://www.awci.org/cd/pdfs/8107_b.pdf)

and yet while "As an example, it is well known that within narrow limits a craftsman learns to expend his physical and mental energy at an accepted pace which he has established" (from second link) we keep getting into a death productivity spiral fueled by retarded KPI and other "fun" HR practices.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yuck, this is just some marketing fluff. What, pray tell, is "spiritual energy" and should companies really get involved in spiritual/religious matters?

Where's the news for hackers?

</comment><comment><USER4> FYI, The Energy Project appears to be a commercial organisation, owned by its chairman and COO (Jean and Sally-Anne Gomes): [https://companycheck.co.uk/company/05881149/THE-ENERGY- PROJE...](https://companycheck.co.uk/company/05881149/THE-ENERGY-PROJECT- EUROPE-LIMITED/group-structure)

</comment><comment><USER5> Rather than trying to pick out the sane parts of this, wouldn't it be better to go find (and watch) that youtube synopsis of "Drive" by Dan Pink?

</comment><comment><USER6> reading and specially looking at the graphics in this article feels more like "Human beings are not computers yet"</comment>


Police Homicides in the United States - <AUTHOR> https://granta.com/violence-in-blue/ <comment><USER2> I'm wondering about the source data used for this. I looked up the nearest city, and the first two records listed aren't remotely homicides.

In the first, a armed felon killed himself during after an eight hour standoff with the police.

In the second, a man attacked a clerk at a hotel. When police arrived, then man was lying on the floor, bleeding. Police immediately called for medics, but the man became unresponsive and died before fire/medical arrived.

These deaths are both counted as "arrest-related-deaths", which is to say, the actual moment of death was when the police were on scene, but in neither case did the police even use force. I didn't see a place in the article where these kind of situation was excluded. Did I miss something?

[Edit, after more digging into the BJS data, it does contain a homicide flag, which is on about 61% of the records. As long as the OP is filtering by this, it's a good start. But take stats on public police killing websites with a big grain of salt, since these kinds of non-force cases are still included in the top level stats for the sites I checked.]

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting analysis.

As a counterpoint to the headline that might be little fear-inducing, my first reaction when reading it was: only so little? Things must be bad.

I mean: the perfect situation is when there are no homicides at all. But in a little less perfect imaginary world, in which bad people never get the chance to hurt innocents because police stops it, some bad people might still go down resisting arrest, at which point 100% of all homicides would be police- inflicted, and that would be _good_. Not perfect, but better than what we have.

Statistics are funny this way.

The real question is, how many of those killed by the police were killed in totally justifiable self-defense, and not just because of policemen being trigger-happy. Or, put another way, what's the probability that a person who is not resisting arrest to get "accidentally" killed by the police.

<comment><USER4> This is based on a false assumption: that the proper police response to life- threatening criminal acts is to kill the perpetrator.

If you get past the _they deserve it_ Puritan mentality, the ideal scenario is for police minimize death (of criminals and police officers) at all costs. Numerous other countries handle violent criminals in ways other than "kill them immediately"; the tendency of police officers to use immediate lethal violence can most likely be explained by the aforementioned Puritan "punishment" mentality, a strong culture of guns and violence encouraged constantly through the media (news, movies, and otherwise) and a myriad of other factors.

<comment><USER5> An example I tend to give is the case a while back where someone was wielding an axe. Two police officers went after him, and the axe-wielding man was shot and killed because he went for one of them.

Success, surely? He protected his partner, who might have been harmed.

The way something like this would likely have gone down somewhere like the UK would be that the first responders would have called for reinforcement, and then _kept their distance_ and waited. You don't engage someone armed unless there is immediate danger to others. She should never have been close enough to be in danger.

In the UK they may or may not call in a firearms team in such a case, but if they did, they'd be brought in as a precaution. More likely they'd close down the area around him and _wait_ , and wear the guy down, and then see if they could get him to drop the weapon peacefully.

For comparison there was a case of a man robbing a house near me a while back unarmed, and the police brought in 20 officers, chased him until he climbed onto a roof. Then they simply waited for 4-5 hours until he accepted he had no way out.

So many of the cases I hear about from the US is down to impatience and seemingly some kind of belief that they need to stop things as quickly as possible rather than trying to stop things with as little conflict as possible.

I don't think it's necessarily so much punishment as fear that if they don't do something, things will escalate. But most of the time if you contain a threat and wait, the level of conflict will de-escalate. So much violence boils down to fear that the other side will be willing to use more violence. And that fear is pervasive through some groups of people. E.g. we see that in the insistence of keeping or carrying weapons.

<comment><USER6> I wonder if some of the preference for violence in the American policing tradition goes back to Western films - where outlaws are wanted dead or alive, a quick draw is the main thing a lawman needs, and the climax of the film is the lawman meeting the bad man in the street, drawing first and shooting him dead.

<comment><USER7> There are so many comments worth responding to in this thread, but this one in particular raises my ire. Are you really trying to reduce policing tradition in America to western films? How about the real west, where self defense was a way of life. I don't want to be too combative but I seriously don't understand peoples inability to understand the principles of self defense as a natural human right, and yes that includes killing when applicable. It just reeks of a naive liberal mindset when people try to say you shouldn't shoot someone who breaks into your house in the middle of the night. Police don't have a duty to protect you, and very often will not protect you, and most of the time will just draw chalk lines around the bodies.

Its your own responsibility to protect yourself and your loved ones or other people who can't protect themselves, that's a fact, and it's high time the anti-gun crowd pulled their heads out of their ass, because a gun equalizes an otherwise unequal situation.

God made humans, Sam colt made them equal. I'm an atheist but the principle still stand. This goes for one of the most vulnerable classes of humans as well, women.

As a combat vet I have some major issues with the militarization of police, and their poor training/methods, so I got a bit ot. If we were to have a real conversation, I think we would be better served to talk of the pinkertonian origins of policing, or the CIA/FBI influence on it (eg. OccupyWall Street snipers), and the general lack of punishment of oath breakers, or the thin blue line.

Instead far too many use it to pivot to a session of anti-gun circlejerking.

<comment><USER6>
      western films? How about the real west,
      where self defense was a way of life.

I restricted my comment to western films as I can talk about them truthfully, having seen several. I can't comment on the real west truthfully as I wasn't there and neither have I engaged in the serious scholarly study that would let me tell reality from legend.

I'm not sure how the rest of your comment relates to my comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> 3 years ago German police officer /u/krautcop posted on reddit about his opinion on why police violence is much higher in the US than in Germany. [1] This might open a new perspective to some people.

1: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLEO/comments/2dgwkp/what_makes_a...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLEO/comments/2dgwkp/what_makes_american_police_use_deadly_force_much/cjpgcbe/)

<comment><USER9> That is an excellent, well thought out and well written post.

It's not short but it's well worth a read. I think he pretty much nails it. He also manages to be reasonably objective which can be tough for someone close to the subject matter.

To summarize crudely, through the lens of my own biases and in a way that doesn't do it justice at all (no really, go read it in full):

\- Police in Germany don't have to shoot first or have twitchy trigger fingers because it's so unlikely anyone will shoot at them. So they don't.

\- The problems in the US are systemic, deep rooted in the culture of the society not just the police, and gun availability doesn't cause the deaths but does significantly exacerbate the problem.

<comment><USER10> It's highly unlikely anyone will shoot at a cop in the USA as well, especially during a traffic stop.

<comment><USER8> There are enough videos on the internet where exactly this happens to US officers. I don't want to link any because they are often very graphic but you can find one in 10 seconds on youtube.

I dare you to find a single article about something like this from Germany or even the EU.

<comment><USER10> Just because there are videos and it happens doesn't mean they happen enough for cops to be afraid.

<comment><USER9> I think the point being made is that however rare it might be in the US that it's even rarer to the point of non-existent in Germany (or the UK etc).

Edit: things don't have to be very common for people to have deep seated fears and want to try and avoid it (however much they might or might not be overreacting doing so).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The question discussed is interesting and important but I felt the structure of this article is somewhat unfortunate: it explains very well and objectively some of the statistical issues and solutions with censored data but then when discussing how it's applied to the particular case of police homicide does so with a rather obvious bias towards assuming that the situation is very bad and comes up with a number, manually inflated, of 1500/y. It may be, but it's unhelpful to mix stats and opinion and not separate the two clearly IMO. It would have been nice to present the raw data, then the statistical techniques and then finally an opinion based on the results.

That being said some important points are highlighted in terms of a lack of accountability of the police in the US.

<comment><USER12> Can you point to exactly where you believe the analysis becomes inaccurate due to the researchers' purported bias? I found the analysis quite clear and the paper was even more illuminating.

If your issue is with the "final" 1,500 number (increased from 1,250), you'll find that it's well-supported in both the blog post:

>>> Keep in mind that the Bureau of Justice Statistics report itself excludes many jurisdictions in the United States that openly refuse to share any data with the FBI. The true number of homicides committed by police is therefore even higher. Though not a true estimate, my best guess of the number of police homicides in the United States is about 1,500 per year.

And the paper:

>>> As mentioned in Banks et al. (2015), these list intersection counts only include jurisdictions that reported any data (about 70%). As such, these numbers should be interpreted as estimates of the number of people killed by police in the reporting jurisdictions. If the reporting jurisdictions are missing from the dataset not because there were truly no killings in those areas during this period, but instead because they chose not to report homicides by police, the true number of police homicides could be 30% higher than we have suggested here.

Note that 1500 represents a 20% increase over 1250, which is lower than the 30% maximum estimate presented in the paper.

<comment><USER13> > If the reporting jurisdictions are missing from the dataset not because > there were truly no killings in those areas during this period, but instead > because they chose not to report homicides by police

That's a rather large assumption that needs to be justified.

<comment><USER12> It is justified, both in the citation and the actual text. The ARD dataset is driven by self-reporting from various local agencies. The fact that the FBI's SHR data and the ARD dataset have a mismatch (that is, there are police- related homicides in SHR that are not present in the ARD data and vice versa) is proof enough that there is underreporting in these datasets!

<comment><USER13> I just realized that underreporting is already accounted for in the 1,250/y thanks to the statistical analysis described in the article.

A = the number of jurisdiction-reported homicides

B = the number of media-reported homicides

M = the number of homicides on both lists

N = AB / M

Now, if jurisdiction-reported homicides are unreported by a factor of X, we can derive a more accurate figure for A by multiplying A by X. We also multiply M by X, because adding cases to list A also adds a similar ratio (on average) to the matches between both lists. And the estimate doesn't change.

N = (XA * B) / XM = AB / M

This assumes, of course, that homicides in the jurisdictions that don't report to the FBI or BJS are still reported by the media. That may not be true but if it's not true, it must be proven false.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm guessing this was posted in response to the release of a cop who murdered David Shaver [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel- sha...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-daniel-shaver- police-video-20171208-story.html)

When did this dystopia begin? It wasn't too long ago right? What can I do to prevent this? There isn't an organized dissent group. Idk what it really that I want.

<comment><USER15> I would think Black Lives Matter would be an organized resistance group, no?

<comment><USER16> It's an organized resistance group, but it's not what we need. Just the name Black Lives Matter is loaded with racial connotations that don't help the situation. We need to focus on police demilitarization everywhere and with everyone, not just around a single race.

<comment><USER17> Black Lives Matter does want demilitarization everywhere and with everyone.

You're getting hung up on the name.

<comment><USER16> It's not just me. It's just not a good organization to stand behind to focus on the demilitarization of the police. It's too racially motivated to gain popular support.

"Black Lives Matter is an international activist movement...that campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people... The U.S. population's perception of Black Lives Matter varies considerably by race... former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, meanwhile, has accused it of racism." [1]

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

<comment><USER15> To me that's appropriate. Black people are at the forefront of police abuse in the US. Solve the problem of black people being abused by police and you've solved the problem in general.

I totally agree that many people have a distorted view of the movement but to me that's a reflection of problems with our culture more than problems with the movement.

<comment><USER16> > Solve the problem of black people being abused by police and you've solved > the problem in general.

This is why BLM should _not_ handle this situation. They think they're the only ones that cops are jerks to. The issue isn't racism, it's the inability of our police force to self-police and remove the bad apples.

> many people have a distorted view of the movement

It literally says that it has "campaigns against violence and systemic racism towards black people." Its focus is not police reform for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In a few hours the Americans will wake up and a bunch of them on HN will say that it's a loaded or divisive or misleading title or that the statistics is flawed. And HN is decisively more progressive than most of the country which simply ignores this kind of news.

It is the way it is in America, because - as a whole - they don't care that much about gun violence.

It's mostly blacks and Latinos getting killed and they are still minorities. And the poor white Americans that also fall victim to police and other gun violence just don't have much political influence.

<comment><USER19> > It's mostly blacks and Latinos getting killed and they are still minorities. > And the poor white Americans that also fall victim to police and other gun > violence just don't have much political influence

Honest question: Couldn't this just be grouped into "poor people" Are affluent blacks and latinos being killed?

I am not denying racism by any means, but it seems people of poverty are most at risk.

<comment><USER20> Even more accurate would be to say people who commit crimes are most at risk of being killed by the police.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> One of the worst videos I've seen on the internet is the Daniel Shaver execution from last year: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw)

The Sergeant (voice in the vid) thinks he's fucking Jigsaw, and he wasn't even the guy that pulled the trigger. America is fucked.

<comment><USER22> No, America is not fucked. If these videos did not have impact then we would be fucked. That they are still so shocking shows that we haven't become police state dystopia that we see in fiction or sadly in parts of this world.

<comment><USER21> How exactly does being shocked move the needle on how many militarized power- tripping clowns there are on the police force? How's that going to change the incumbent culture of badge protection?

Being shocked certainly hasn't stopped it from happening. So what's the secret?

I'm shocked this time because I haven't seen footage so bad. But I won't be shocked the next time...

<comment><USER9> Not OP, and not quite he same argument, but at least you're still shocked. That might be cold comfort to the dead man, but it does suggest there could be a glimmer of hope. If everyone stops being shocked at things like this, it will have been completely normalized.

As soon as you're at the point where someone can say _unchallenged_ something like "oh yeah, another black man's been shot, who cares", then perhaps there's less hope.

The US isn't there yet is it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Michael Brown was shot because he was charging at a police officer.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told- grand-j...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/witnesses-told-grand-jury- that-michael-brown-charged-at-darren-wilson-prosecutor-says.html)

Lumping him in with actual victims does actual victims a disservice.

<comment><USER24> If an unarmed man charges at you, you don't have the right to kill them. Police forces all round the world manage fine with battons and other non lethal weapons.

<comment><USER23> There's plenty of other exemplars of police violence to make the point. No need to turn the incident with Michael Brown into something it wasn't.

I'd hardly describe a violent, 6'4", 300 pound guy charging at me as something that needs to be dealt with with kids gloves.

According to our legal tradition, you can use deadly force if you fear for your life. This is the universal right of all free people - to defend themselves.

<comment><USER25> Regardless of the legality, I reserve the right to an opinion on the matter. I consider it cowardly to shoot an unarmed man, violent or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have known many cops, correctional officers, military police, etc.

Without exception, all the ones I have known have been good, helpful people who would not harm someone intentionally. (There are obviously a few bad ones, but none that I have known.)

It's one of the hardest, scariest, least fairly compensated jobs I can think of. Thank God for cops.

</comment><comment><USER27> I can't manage to read the whole thing. It starts from an assumption of guilt and corruption. It is looking for support for an accusation. Such an agenda does not make for good science.

Don't get me wrong. I would be very interested in finding real solutions for the tendency to see Blacks gunned down by the police. My assumption is this known trend is the driving force behind this piece.

I just think this is the wrong way to approach the problem space.

 _How to lie with statistics_ is an excellent book. I highly recommend it. It is a large factor in my decision to not bother to read this piece too thoroughly.

<comment><USER28> >finding real solutions for the tendency to see Blacks gunned down by the police

Stop hiring racist police. Stop aquiting police of murder. Stop using tax payers dollars to pay for compensation claims.

<comment><USER27> _Stop hiring racist police._

One of the problems is that racism is insidious. People who self identify as idealists who are not racist will still agree with cultural norms that are secondary or tertiary forms of racism.

To try to illustrate this idea:

In my twenties, after months of hearing about my husband's new best friend from work, I finally met the man. He was black. My husband and I were both white. My husband had never once mentioned that his new best friend was black, even though he talked about him constantly.

I was shocked to realize that I had assumed he was white since my husband did not mention his race. In that instant, I realized this assumption was the product of a racist culture where such details mattered and needed to be stated privately ahead of time to avoid any awkwardness or misunderstanding.

I realized that was how racism worked -- you just have certain social norms that may seem innocuous, but that reinforce the ongoing issue. Many people will not consciously question myriad social norms. People soak up social norms by being exposed to them and trying to fit in. There usually isn't lots of overt _instruction_ on how and why we do such things.

So, first you need someone to sort this out in their own heart and mind. Second, they need to disseminate this new standard, often at enormous risk to themselves. Questioning social norms is generally dangerous business and has a history of getting people killed.

Trying to find genuinely not racist people in a generally racist culture is very challenging. Most people from such a culture who see themselves as not racist will still have ugly bad habits and mental models.

And then, when they need to decide whether to pull the trigger or not, their biases will show, not because they hate Blacks so much that they want them dead, but because they don't trust Blacks as much as Whites.

I don't believe this is a problem that will really be solved by simply punishing people more a la _The beatings shall continue until morale improves._ Instead, we need to improve trust and I don't how that can happen. But it certainly won't happen with our current approach to the problem space, where trust issues between the races in America seem to not even be part of the discussion.

My original comment was downvoted to the negatives and one of the first three replies is a personal attack. The US was founded on the idea of _innocent until proven guilty_ , but the public is not willing to follow that precept for this issue. Witch hunts tend to result in finding people guilty because that is what they set out to do. It is a very serious and damning flaw in this paper, but my comment on that aspect is not PC and is reason enough to lump me in with killer cops as part of the problem.

In such an atmosphere, good luck with even having a productive discussion. And if you can't even discuss it, you are unlikely to solve it.

<comment><USER27> A more nutshell version: Would HN be taking this paper seriously if it came from the opposite direction of bias and were written by a White Supremacist? No? Then why does anyone have a problem with me pointing out the obvious bias and agenda in the piece that is broadcast from the start?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's understandable that Americans continue seeking measurable blame, but I _think_ this is a complicated result of wider cultural issues, none of which can be isolated. So sad.

<comment><USER30> > _but I think this is a complicated result of wider cultural issues, none of > which can be isolated_

The lack of accountability for murders committed by police in the US is not a difficult "issue" to isolate.

<comment><USER29> I think the causes for it, particularly why we are apparently unable to adjust it are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The description of this technique is excellent. I once used this many years ago to determine the hidden depth of card card sharing networks for pay tv. it's not exact but it does help quantify issues with deep unreachable data, and sets a base line to compare against over time.

</comment><comment><USER32> The frequency of police homicides suggests that we, as a society, need to _disarm the police_.

</comment><comment><USER33> Whats the ideal here?

1\. Doctors 2\. Foreign combatants 3\. Police 4\. Motorists 5\. Other

I can see how all of those groups perform tasks that might result in the death of strangers unavoidably. Doctors are the only ones who I'd actually pay to wager with my life, so I'd them to win.

I'd like a world without wars, but I'm happy that we have a stading military.

I lived in the UK for 30 years. It's national news when they kill someone and they stand up and appologise for not having a better solution. That feels about right. But their number isn't zero.

And finally, cars. We're already talking about the trolley problem wrt automated cars. It seems we accept that death from going 2-3 times our natural speed in vehicles 10x our weight is dangerous. But It would be nice if technology could get that death rate to lower than law enforcement.

</comment><comment><USER34> How many police officers have been killed in the line of duty this year?

</comment><comment><USER35> That's a super careful wording when you realize two thirds of all people are killed by someone close to them.

<comment><USER36> The article says that 75% are killed by people close to them. Of the remaining 25% killed by strangers, two-thirds of those are killed by non-police- officers.

<comment><USER19> Can we then say 8.3% of people killed are by police?

75% killed by people close to them (not sure if they showed police close to them deaths)

16.6% killed by a stanger

8.3% killed by a police stranger (not that that is good!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Keep in mind the ideal number would be 100% via proper police procedure.

</comment><comment><USER37> and this is why i don't like to deal with police. They can't control their weapons

<comment><USER38> They can't control their weapons because they have to operate in a society that can't control its weapons...

<comment><USER16> Other countries have plenty of weapons around, yet don't have police that use deadly force immediately. Finland is a prime example[1].

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

<comment><USER39> It's not about the weapons, it's about the people with the weapons.

Finland has a national murder rate of 1.6. [1] At first that doesn't seem too bad as our murder rate is "only" about 300% higher. But that comparison by itself is quite misleading. Crime, and especially the most violent crimes including murder, are not evenly distributed in the US. They're heavily centralized into relatively small areas. So for instance these [2] are the crime data for Ferguson, Missouri where Michael Brown was killed. In the year Michael Brown was killed, their homicide rate was double the US average. It's now skyrocketed to 42.8 - 2,675% higher than Finland.

To give some context to that 42.8 the murder rate in Mexico is 16.35. In Columbia it's 26.5. As a matter of fact, in terms of nations - there are only 5 places in the world more dangerous than Ferguson, Missouri -- a town of some 20k people. I'm certainly not condoning police actions, but at the same time I think people don't really consider these situations in terms of context. Somebody, seemingly without irony, suggested we ought disarm the police. Imagine disarmed police in Mexico.. now increase the danger they face by 300%. That's what disarming police in areas like Ferguson, Missouri would be akin to.

This sort of reality is very foreign to us, who I suspect for the most part have led very privileged lives. And so we extrapolate our lives to a situation where suddenly the police are just killing people. And that would indeed be insane. It's so foreign for us to imagine how dangerous many places in the US are -- and it's these locations where the systemic police violence tends to also be heavily centralized.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

[2] - [http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson- Missouri.html](http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html)

<comment><USER16> > I think people don't really consider these situations in terms of context.

Then let's add some context to this conversation. This whole post was made because of the recently released video of a police officer executing a citizen[1]. That police officer was then acquitted. This kind of police response would never occur in other civilized countries, regardless of the relative murder rate.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M62Va6Ft2cw)

<comment><USER39> I'm having a bit of a parallel discussion elsewhere and I think my response there is completely appropriate here, but I'd rather not just cut and paste the same stuff all over the place: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15885977](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15885977)

The downside of threaded discussions!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The statistical abuse in this headline is extreme. It's so meaningless, yet so carefully designed to appeal to irrational confirmation biases. Consider some extremely simple thought experiments:

e.g. Imagine a world where police do their job even better, and eliminate _all_ murder. But, in some cases, they have to kill the murderer before he takes an innocent victim. They never kill unless it's absolutely necessary and justified. In such a world, this statistic rises to "All people killed by strangers are killed by police", which sounds worse than the headline, yet such a world is obviously better than ours.

e.g. Imagine a world where police never do anything. They drink beer in the station all day. All people killed by strangers are killed by non-police. Such a world is much worse than ours, yet this stat looks a lot better.

Just these very simple thought experiments should give you pause about what this statistical comparison actually means (or if it means anything at all).

\---

My two questions to those who think this is some sort of obvious travesty:

1\. What would be a healthy ratio between [people killed by non-police strangers] and [people killed by police]? 1:5? 1:10? 1:100? Why?

2\. How is this random choice of two statistics not just another variation on the Chinese robber fallacy? [1]

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and- chine...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/09/16/cardiologists-and-chinese- robbers/)

<comment><USER41> Well, maybe it helps to compare:

Germany: 2155 homicides in 2011, 6 by the police.

<comment><USER42> How many German police officers are killed a year? In 2011 it was 69 in the US (and another 58 died in accidents).

<comment><USER43> A Google search suggest 0-2 depending on what year you pick, see bottom of:

[http://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by- fl...](http://www.dw.com/en/two-german-police-officers-killed-by-fleeing- murder-suspect-in-brandenburg/a-37749390)

In most of Western Europe it's extremely rare that police officers are killed in the line of duty.

Note: most countries count the number of bullets fired by police, as well as number of times a weapon was drawn, in the US they don't officially count people killed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Say what you will about US police departments: they keep the population in line and when shit goes down they don't run away.

Trust me: you do NOT want the police to be your friend. They tried that experiment here.</comment>