Art of Seduction (The) - Threat to order/security institution
Bookkeeping for Dummies - This book may facilitate crimial activity because the book includes tax forms which may be used to facilitate the filing of false or fraudulent tax documents.
The Michigan list is nuts. "Google Power, by Chris Sherman" is probably the dumbest one I've found so far -- it's just a book about how to use Google better. "So how did the inmate break out of his cell?" "He googled 'let me out'." "Shoot, if only we had banned that book!"
Also "ESPN - NBA Draft Preview" was banned with the reason: "The magazine includes an article which describes acts of bondage and sadism inflicted on individuals.". wat.
Because it would seem that if, for whatever reason, I was mistakenly accused and convicted of something, I would basically have no way of continuing my life.
Also, I refuse to support a local (bleh, state, whatever) government with taxes just so they can ignore my vote. I'd rather live in a state where my vote goes to someone who supports my gripes. And yes, I recognize that that sucks, and that if more people moved to places where they could change things with their vote, things would actually get changed. But I'm one person, and me moving wouldn't solve anything.
I think your concern is misplaced. Just because you like coding and reading that an overcrowded ghetto California prison is going to be so much better than Michigan's in case you get mistakenly accused and convicted of something?
I'm 100% sure that wherever you currently live would comically and ironically undermine whatever you just said here in one way or another.
Basically you could find something to gripe about and something to ignore, and any of us could find out how your gripes aren't being supported.
What's interesting is that The Art of Seduction is written by the author of The 48 Laws of Power, which is hugely popular among inmates. However, the Art of Seduction is almost entirely about romantic influence, and most of its lessons are about manipulating the emotions of one single target individual....so in my opinion it's hard to see how The Art of Seduction should be off-limits to prisoners.
Escapes have traditionally featured a charismatic prisoner who seduced a member of the prison staff into doing something at least marginally helpful (i.e. "accidentally" leaving an internal door unlocked).
Prisons don't want prisoners any more capable of social-engineering staff than they already are.
Background: I am a cofounder at Hack Reactor, a coding bootcamp in SF. I worked with Beverly and Chris Redlitz to start Code.7370. Hack Reactor dedicated instruction, curriculum, and volunteer management to its foundation by building the curriculum, bundling all required materials (no internet in the classroom), and lecturing through the first class. I personally visited San Quentin a couple of dozen times to plan and teach, as did many coworkers at Hack Reactor. I also managed the volunteer-driven project to build the curriculum, powered by Hack Reactor alums and other volunteers. I worked closely with the students in the program (incredibly smart, dedicated, and community-oriented) and I was given a window into the very inspiring program that TLM envisioned, built, and (over the years since) managed and scaled.
There's one phrase that makes the whole thing very important : "In April, ABC News reported that none of the prisoners who had gone through the program had returned to prison since being released.". It is, imo, the only thing that really matters in the end
It's likely that former criminals get back into crime because they can't make a living, so they go back into something more lucrative and they have experience with. Coding is incredibly lucrative, so problem solved?
Wonder how they are getting jobs though. The number of jobs hiring those without university experience (and practical experience) and a criminal record can't be substantial. Probably job placement which is possible because it's a small program they really want to work. The actual website is very media friendly, but numbers are lacking.
I've noticed that software gigs tend to be a lot more reasonable about the felony checkbox. Not in banking/medical/other regulated areas, and usually towards white folks (which addresses some cultural stuff), but in general.
I remember I was going to donate some old software text books to a prison volunteer organization. They turned my offer down saying something to the effect that inmate's reading levels would prevent them from comprehending college texts. I remember thinking it would inspire some Malcolm X type person getting all absorbed in reading and expanding the mind. I was pretty shocked at being declined, and made me contemplate being a Pollyanna about this subject.
That all criminals have a low reading level/intelligence is a classist(?) argument which supports systemic prejudice against criminals, increases recidivism, and limits their paths for redemption.
Some of the ideas referenced in this article seem kind of weird to me, like that coding is “the next big blue collar job.”
Is this a profession or a trade?
Is “Software Engineering” a euphemism that exaggerates our jobs?
Did I waste my time getting a CS degree and spending half my life learning to do this?
I’m all in favor of anyone who wants to learn programming having a go at it, but I hope it doesn’t make me an elitist if I wonder whether it’s fair to consider software dev or engineering a trade skill that most anyone should be able to learn in several months without a general STEM education...
Just because you've finished a machinist apprenticeship doesn't mean you're a master machinist.
It's the same thing for software development. You can learn how to be useful or productive (albeit with a limited set of skills) in several months of applied training. That doesn't mean you're automatically skilled in things such as handling big data, compiler construction, HPC/optimization, systems programming, multithreaded applications...the list goes on.
However, as far as I can tell, not only is a 4 year program overkill for what most people want to do, a CS bachelor's degree usually doesn't cover particularly relevant information. A computer science degree teaches computer science, not software engineering. It's intended to introduce basic concepts which will be needed when proceeding on to do research.
What most people really want is an education in software engineering.
My background is a CS degree from a liberal arts college, and I've found that my coursework in compilers and operating systems has often come in very useful. Additionally I've found that recent grads who have "computer *" degrees (e.g. "engineering" instead of "science") often are lacking exactly the most helpful and applicable knowledge I picked up in undergrad.
That said, I completely agree with your sentiment: Had my priority been to establish a software engineering career, a whole lot of what I did could have been skipped and substituted for things like learning how to write good unit tests.
I also strongly agree with you on "finished apprenticeship" vs. "master."
I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach to the research. It requires a very deep understanding of complex systems, formal reasoning, and emergent behavior.
On the other end of the spectrum, I know people who got a degree completed unrelated to STEM, and through some on-the-job training managed to work their way into reasonably successful careers doing routine web development, or similar things. That certainly looks more like a trade. It's a marketable, valuable skill. They had to put some effort into something like an apprenticeship. But it's not exactly half their life training for a formal engineering discipline either.
There are plenty of respectable ways to make a living in the software world that don't require a 4-year degree from en engineering school. I don't think we should pretend otherwise or force people into the way we got our education. I'm more on the engineering side, but I'm very passionate about my work, and not everyone needs to be like that. Some people just want to make a living and focus on other things in life.
> I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach to the research. It requires a very deep understanding of complex systems, formal reasoning, and emergent behavior.
In Germany, there are two different flavors for the apprenticeship to "Fachinformatiker" (Computer Science Expert): One for software development and one for systems integrations, there's even a sub-specialization for "support".
The translation "expert" is ridiculous. Its an apprenticeship at college level, not a doctorate. I have no idea what the american equivalent is, because there might not be a standardized title, and maybe expert is not a protected title. Fachinformatiker is more of a technician with 1.5y of school and 1.5y on the job training interleaved.
Not my translation, it's the "official" translation from the German Chamber of Industry and Commerce [0].
> I have no idea what the american equivalent is, because there might not be a standardized title, and maybe expert is not a protected title.
I don't think there is a US equivalent to the German "Fachinformatiker", just like there's generally no real US equivalent to the German apprenticeship system. Imho Fachinformatiker as an apprenticeship is a good approach because not every IT job needs to be on an academic level, no reason to lock a whole field of work behind the entry-barrier of having an academic title/university education.
>I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach to the research. It requires a very deep understanding of complex systems, formal reasoning, and emergent behavior.
Is it engineering then? Or is it scientific? Because they're not the same thing.
Having a scientific approach to one aspect of the field's literature is hardly saying you're a scientist. But then some people do refer to themselves as computer scientist. But we're really getting caught up in titles too much, IMO.
Programmers are not computer scientists, and computer science is no more equivalent to software engineering than physics is equivalent to civil engineering.
Programmers are also not, in general, software engineers.
It's not about getting 'caught up in titles' either, IMO. It's an important distinction. Computer science programmes get flack for not teaching practical software engineering skills, which is totally unreasonable. Just as we have physics programmes, we should have proper computer science programmes.
You are allowed to do a physics degree and offer physics courses without people going 'but how do I design bridges??'. Yet every computer science lecturer will tell you they've had people ask 'but what does this have to do with making websites??'.
I guess I'm just confused why you take issue with the phrase "a scientific approach to the research"? You don't see people applying the scientific method and academic rigor to papers in that part of the software field? That doesn't make them scientists, but I didn't claim it did.
[I'm a cofounder at Hack Reactor, a coding bootcamp.]
Your comment defines a trade skill as one "that most anyone should be able to learn in several months without a general STEM education". So, let's evaluate that question for a few different trades/professions.
"Software Engineering": We have determined, through experimental proof, that bootcamps can make (some) novice non-degree-holders into employable software engineers in 3 months. Probably 3-18 months would cover most people that would otherwise be entering college in a CS major.
At parties I like to ask people how long it would take to teach someone to do their job. (Posit that they're smart and interested.) For most white-collar jobs, people answer "6-18 months". Most trade schools are somewhere in that region as well.
In my opinion, most professions would be well-served by the bootcamp model (like software engineering is) and a 6-18 month training period. So per your definition, I would say there are few professions out there, if any.
I understand calling someone an engineer is critical to your marketing, but they aren't engineers. Teaching someone a framework isn't teaching them any form of engineering. It's teaching them to be an employable technician. Engineering is teaching from first principles.
A good rule of thumb: can they do their job if Stackoverflow.com is blocked at the corporate firewall?
In Canada it is illegal to practice engineering, or use the title "professional engineer" or "engineer", without a license. For example, after complaints were lodged by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, a court in Quebec fined Microsoft Canada $1,000 for misusing the "engineer" title by referring to MCSE graduates as engineers.
The 'Professional Engineer' title is regulated but there is some doubt with the plain 'Engineer' title. It also varies depending on each province
Microsoft was fined but still hasn't changed their certificate titles, and this fined was levied in 2004. So it shows that enforcement of this is spotty at best.
All in all, I agree. However, I'm a self-taught software developer who could do (and frequently do do) my job without Stackoverflow.com. Furthermore, given enough time, I'm also confident I could build from scratch any of the frameworks I use on a day-to-day basis. And yet I would not consider myself a software engineer (even though I've held that job title).
The more I learn about serious computer science and engineering work, the more I realize that I can't do that kind of work with any degree of fluency...yet. I'm continuing to work (slowly) toward that direction. But I've also realized that relatively few software developer jobs actually require these skills.
Nonetheless, I am a very solid software developer, who can built robust, correct, and reliable software.
Actually, I think "software technician" is a great name for bootcamp graduates to hold. It perfectly captures the level of training they've finished.
Do mechanical or electrical engineers do their jobs without access to datasheets or reference tables? In what world is engineering defined on a person's ability to remember facts vs their ability to build things inside of resource constraints and with high levels of tolerance?
If you can guarantee documentation as good as documentation for physical materials then I'd say yea. I do agree that there are a portion of developers who seem to just copy and paste from stack overflow without even trying to understand whats happening
Yes, and that's was what I was referring to. My bigger point of course being that there are plenty of "engineers" that really don't know how to solve problems, but just assemble code.
> We have determined, through experimental proof, that bootcamps can make (some) novice non-degree-holders into employable software engineers in 3 months
Engineers or developers? How can you differentiate?
I've been writing code for about twenty-two years now (fifteen getting paid for it), I build large systems with tight fault tolerances and work to deeply understand my failure cases.
Your "6-18 months" is probably enough to make a code grinder. I wouldn't say twenty years, with current tools and current culture, has made me an engineer.
Well those semantical terms won't get you anywhere. There isn't a difference which will reach consensus.
But alas, I see the root of your argument. Universities aren't teaching people to be great for corporate America, despite how warped that ideal of higher learning has become. Coding schools are sticking to what is relevant for current roles. Many of the coding schools already know what the current roles are and act as glorified recruiters making the bulk of their earnings on the placement of their students in roles they have already lined up.
Being productive in a corporate environment doesn't take much time at the right level of the stack.
> Being productive in a corporate environment doesn't take much time at the right level of the stack.
I fully agree, and I think that's a great job to teach to and for people to have. I think conflating it with this-had-better-frigging-work engineering is dangerous to both the profession and the people who trust us to do good work for them (both as employers/clients and as a society).
Engineer means something. Hell, I build systems expecting them to fail and I understand how to proof them, to the best of my time/cost allowances, against failure. I'm still not "an engineer". And--and this is important--I am also not held liable like one.
I get and even agree with your point, but that distinction already doesn't exist in current software engineering. Unless there is some sort of rules and/or punishment against calling something engineering when its not, like being responsible for failures the same way the guys who engineer bridges are responsible, then its just gonna be meaningless words. I have seen companies convert people from "Software Developer" to "Software Engineer" just to make them happier without a raise.
If it actually meant something we wouldn't have the industry standard interview consisting of seeing if you can do basic comp sci algorithms either. As far as I am aware other engineering disciplines don't get asked to whiteboard something like calculus to see if they can do the basics when they go for a new job
Choosing to make a muddy distinction worse because "everyone does it" is not really deserving of applause, is it? I mean--words mean things. (And, to that end, I do think that the word "engineer" should be federally protected to distinguish us idiots from professional engineers.)
And, yes, the tire fire that is interviewing is a large part of this.
I don't mean to muddy it, its already muddied. Saying someone is a lawyer is easy, if they passed the bar they are a lawyer. If someone has a medical license they are a doctor. There is no equivalent for software engineering. If you got 20 software engineers in a room you'd end up with 25 definitions for what a software engineer is.
A good portion of the software community does not want a governing body over the industry. If we are going to accept that, then we also need to accept that titles are meaningless because there are no standards.
I don't accept that and I think that those people are, by and large, why we need one.
But, by "muddying", I was referring to the original post I replied to that pimped services for turning people into somewhat-competent web developers and calling them engineers. Sorry for the confusion.
'Semantical terms'? Semantics literally just means 'meaning'. If you don't want a discussion to involve discussing meaning, what do you want it to discuss? Your grammar? Your spelling? Your syntax?
I appreciate your comment. Call me when you're willing to sign off on your code as doing only what it is meant to do, and no more. Call me when you can demonstrate that your code functions all the time, every time.
This is not denigration. I have worked with real engineers that wrote code. Sign off on it, and I will listen.
Thanks for this. I can see where I'm making some unconsidered assumptions about what a trade (or profession) is. Also, I guess I could probably have shaved off a few months by skipping music appreciation, and so on. :)
All I know is that I've definitely been in some jobs where gluing together api's and cranking out templates felt closer to assembly line work than actual programming.
> Is “Software Engineering” a euphemism that exaggerates our jobs?
Maybe. I'd argue if you're mostly working with frameworks, you're probably more of a technician than an engineer.
I believe software engineering is a thing, but most who carry that job title don't do it. In the same sense that there's not much "science" in computer science.
It's not fair to think they can learn how to really develop software in a few months. It sets them up for an unreasonable expectation. Can some people do it? Yeah sure. There are always going to be those few people that can pick it up and grasp it that quickly, but for most it's just not possible. I've met a number of people with 4 year degrees that can barely do it. If this were easy, then there wouldn't be a shortage of developer constantly. I am sure there are some jobs people with a couple months of experience can do adequately, but this is far from the norm.
The line has blurred because many companies now mandate that you hold a degree and 22 years of experience to even look in the direction of a computer, but I would say that not too long ago, it would be a pretty fair claim.
There's no need to pretend that code monkeys who churn out generic CRUD programs are highly skilled or talented. It's respectable, pays enough, demands enough, and many people are capable of it; it's as close to a blue collar office job as you could ask for.
Actual software "engineers," working on complex problems in computation, mathematics, physics, etc. are hugely outnumbered, even today, let alone tomorrow.
Assuming that computer science books are banned because they could be used for getting access to unauthorized systems within the prison, they should also ban books on plumbing because a wrench could be used to hit somebody, or books on math as well because what if a prisoner finds a way to create a quantum tunnel outside of the prison just with some simple equations?
I'm consistently surprised by how idiotic our prison system in the US is. It seems to have two mantras: "the more the merrier" and "punish, not correct." I guess that's what happens when you have something as dumbfoundingly stupid as private prisons.
Maus is pretty strongly anti-nazi of course because it's told from the perspective of a Holocaust survivor. It would be like banning Schindler's List from a list of films available to prisons. Maybe it is banned in some places.
I don't think the availability of any Nazi related books would have any impact on the membership of prison gangs. People don't join them for ideological reasons.
I volunteered in a NYS prison for a while. They had rooms full of computers which were off-limits to prisoners for unspecified security reasons. Some people were talking about offering a purely paper-based course on programming. At least developing programming skills was not a thought-crime there, though.
I once delivered a public speaking course to a group of prisoners about to go on parole. It was really eye opening to see how low confidence most of them had, and how bad they were at expressing themselves. In my opinion prisons should be made a lot more like college - make it that prisoners are forced to learn skills instead of being forced to do nothing.
All states and the federal government are allowed to enslave prisoners. Is anyone surprised they ban books without reason? As long as the 13th Amendment stays unamended, nothing will ever change in this area. When people are thought of as subhuman slaves, there's no limit to the depravity and horrors that will be justified.
> Computer programming is, according to Wired’s Clive Thompson, “The Big Blue Collar Job.” In countries like Australia and Estonia, coding has become a central part of school curricula. If programming is the wave of the future in employment, prisons in several American states may be cutting incarcerated people off from gaining important skills by preventing them from possessing or receiving books about computer programming.
Journalists clearly have a problem with the fact that the asocial nerds and geeks from high school are making much more money than them. That's why we see so many articles referring to us as "coders" (like the people that do medical data entry) instead of "software engineers," and why we see people like Clive Thompson classifying us as blue collar workers--unlike journalists, who presumably are white collar. Considering that to the average reader, rightly or wrongly, one of the central distinctions between blue and white collar workers is intelligence, with blue collar workers stereotyped as being less intelligent, Thompson's classification is a rather obvious slight.
Huh. I immediately thought 'bullshit' and googled it, but Wikipedia says that yes, treadmills were invented in the UK in 1818 for prison labor.
But depending on how you define a treadmill, I don't think that's true; beasts of burden have been walking in circles to drive mills since people started cultivating wheat.
This is a joke, right? Or perhaps you are not familiar with the American prison industrial complex? Here[1] are some data from 20 years ago. Intuition and my recent reading suggest it's gotten even worse. Read up on the Corrections Corporation of America, at the very least.
Your characterizations are completely unsupported by modern sociological research.
I taught prison inmates to code. You are not well-informed about this issue. If you would like to pursue further education, I recommend volunteering at a local prison education program. It's a very rewarding and interesting experience.
Or maybe they don't have an alternative to earn a decent living and would quit crime if they could find a good job? I don't know that I wouldn't sell drugs if my alternative was flipping burgers at McDonald's for $1000 a month.
Not really. Criminals and non-criminals are distinct castes. Simple proof: during the last financial crisis in 2008-2009, millions of people went broke with no prospect of employment, many found themselves in desperate situations with their houses foreclosed and their spouses leaving. With your logic, that kind of invited them into crime. Yet, there weren't an increase in crime rates, crime continued to slowly decline as the generation of people who breathed lead vapors as kids in 1970s kept ageing. Being criminal is a mental issue, not a social condition.
Lack of opportunities for a nice lifestyle is not a justification for criminal behavior. They're on completely separate axes, and people would do well to disconnect the two. That is one of the big reasons that we're in this mess in the first place. I.e. people being unhappy with their share of the pie and using it as justification to steal/defraud, and finally to hurt when the first two don't fix their situation.
> Lack of opportunities for a nice lifestyle is not a justification for criminal behavior.
Of course it's not. Suppose you're in a situation where you have a lack of education, family/community support, and a general lack of resources. Perhaps you already have a minor conviction on your record due to racist or classist laws. The options are: have money, or don't. Do you sell drugs? In the states, where money implies safety, health care, and the means to provide for your family, while lack of money implies little security for your way of life, potentially no access to health care, and no support for your family, the choice is obvious.
And yes, about half of federal prisoners in the US are for drug offences[1].
> and finally to hurt
I assume you're talking about violence in general. I know you didn't argue against it, but since it's the topic of the original article, I'll state it plainly. I would rather violent offenders receive education (yes, at a cost to taxpayers), which is shown to reduce recidivism greatly, than have my taxes go to a system which favours their return to prison.
> Lack of opportunities for a nice lifestyle is not a justification for criminal behavior.
It's not about lifestyle, it's about eating and putting a roof over ones head. No wants to be a drug dealer, people turn drug dealer because they have no other opportunities.
The reason I said that is because the person I was responding to mentioned this:
>"I don't know that I wouldn't sell drugs if my alternative was flipping burgers at McDonald's for $1000 a month."
$1000 per month is at least livable and means that you're not starving or homeless. So making the choice of turning to crime to go above that is a lifestyle one.
Indeed. A rational and well-socialised person, even if poor, will most certainly not resort to crimes. It is a genetic/psychologicl trait. Teaching criminals coding only results in better equipped criminals.
i hate HN people downvote you left and right for no reason.. This trend has to stop...
You cannot compare students to inmates Inmates are official criminals, not students... The system has already proven inmates have criminal activity. You think you can just teach code and it won't cross their mind to use it to nefarious ends?
It's a real risk
I didn't downvote you for "no reason." I downvoted you for a laughably I'll thought out post.
Your logic suggests we shouldn't let them get their hands on anything that could be used illegally - so let's keep them away from kitchen knives, automotive repair (makes it easier to steal cars), coaching baseball (all those dangerous blunt instruments), gardening (opportunities to case houses), etc.
If precluding all future chance of nefarious activity is the goal, you don't have a system of rehabilitation, you just have an excuse to exile people.
Perhaps he thought the issue was permitting inmates to write programs that, while they were institutionalized, would be released to the public. Maybe they would be permitted to electronically converse and cooperate with open source project maintainers. That's what I thought before reading the article, probably because I was primed by the comment about Caspia.
I still wouldn't agree that categorically restricting such activity is reasonable, but it's less laughable in that context.
> If precluding all future chance of nefarious activity is the goal, you don't have a system of rehabilitation, you just have an excuse to exile people.
And I would contend that if there is a lacking system of rehabilitation, you are actually causing an increase in criminal activity as well as incurring excessive expenses required to support a punishment-oriented infrastructure.
Well there are 2 points I think you need to understand.
First, in the US at least (which I know isn't the whole world, but this article is specifically about the states) the connection between being an inmate and being a bad person is weak. Many criminals are really only criminals by a technical definition - they're people who were convicted. But many of them were never actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law - almost all of them (I mean more than 95%) took a plea deal because they had a choice between a trial and a long sentence and a plea and a short sentence). And a ridiculously huge number of them are in there for what are arguably victimless crimes (like marijuana - and we can debate that all day, but you can get a license to sell alcohol but you're a criminal for selling a drug with pretty similar impact - hardly the line between good guy / bad guy). We have about the highest incarceration rate in the world. Something is seriously wrong with our definition of criminal and how to actually reduce crime.
The second thing is that, as I said, the connection between education and a net good is very well proven. Programs that focus on being productive members of society are demonstrably far more effective than programs that just punish and disincentivize the past. Treating someone as though they can't even be trusted to learn basic coding skills because they'll probably hack into stuff is a dead end. And honestly, it's a pretty stupid one. You asked for research, and that research has been done ad-nauseum. It's just that it hasn't been listened to very well. That's probably the reason you were getting downvotes.
Not helping them better themselves is also a real risk. "Criminal activity" is generally not an attribute of a person — it's something they engage in. Giving them a better direction for their life reduces the risk of future criminal activity.
Prison should try to rehabilitate the individuals as in teach them payable skills. At least this way they will have a chance to reintegrate in society when they finish their sentence.
Just about every decision that people make constitute some kind of risk. Consider the flip side of the coin -- what is the risk of denying prisoners legitimate educational resources?
It's probably better to remove the blanket ban and apply it to individual prisoners based on their risk profile.
A+ Certification Exam Guide - May facilitate or encourage criminal activity
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons - Threat to the order and security of the institution; role play
Against the Wind - Threat to the order/security of institution (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/206757.Against_the_Wind)
Art of Seduction (The) - Threat to order/security institution
Bookkeeping for Dummies - This book may facilitate crimial activity because the book includes tax forms which may be used to facilitate the filing of false or fraudulent tax documents.