What Happens After Prisoners Learn to Code?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
That said, I can also understand why companies avoid ex-cons. Companies make decisions based on statistics. A company will, ceterus paribus, always choose the candidate who has no criminal history because that candidate is less likely to commit a crime and hurt the company.
It's not so simple. A murderer or rapist may have served his term in prison but still not have made restitution to the victim or his or her family. However, it's good for felons to find work after incarceration so that they can support themselves and ideally make amends to victims.
Perhaps some kind of standardized post-incarceration psychological/behavioral evaluation and certification system?
edit: someone mentioned this: https://thelastmile.org/
Does anyone have any insight for how we should approach companies on their behalf? Is it more beneficial to teach web development (it seems like this is an easier way to break into the industry)?
I am also interested in hearing any opinions on how we should approach teaching in the setting where there is no internet access and the typical mathematics level is algebra.
Here is a link to a learning platform that is specially designed for the offline setting: https://learningequality.org/kolibri/ It can work both as a general purpose library (for self-directed learning) or as a LMS in a setting where there is someone who can "coach" the learners by monitoring their progress, organizing them into groups, and assigning specific lessons. In order for the content to work offline, it needs to be "packaged" as a Kolibri Channel (local copy of the content), then you can import it from a USB drive.
Another project in the localhost space is Kiwix-Serve: https://www.kiwix.org/en/downloads/kiwix-serve/ Kiwix content comes in .zim files (~= zip with html+assets in it). You can download lots of .zim files available here: https://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content_in_all_languages In particular, the stackoverflow.com zim file (140GB) might be useful to have offline when learning to code.
The open question is how much trust do you want to give? Of course, 2nd, 3rd, 4th chances are awesome and all - but in reality; as a company with lots to lose. 1. reputationally 2. financially
All in all, I'd probably be more concerned about foreign nationals open to various forms of coercion than I would felons - in the general case, anyway. Of course, there are certain environments where more assurance is needed and not employing from either category is reasonable, and the type of criminal background also matters. For instance, someone from a bad neighborhood who got swept up in gang activity like the guy in the article is probably a lot less likely to try to fuck you over than a serious convicted blackhat/fraudster.
It's also possible to, as in the article, explicitly limit their roles to those that don't touch customer data or sensitive product code, where it'd be significantly more sufficient to parlay access into a quick payout. One ironic thing is that's frequently the exact opposite of how it works in practice: think of all the crooked telco CS reps who've been doing SIM swaps recently. Those roles aren't exactly exclusive positions, and I'd argue they're a good example of why paying people crap combined with poor vetting and lots of access is a bad idea.
I think a baseline level of trust is an absolute requirement, regardless of how well implemented your organizational access security is.
I would say that any company source code, by definition, is a company secret, and there will always exist an easy means for an employee to leak or compromise that secret.
Trust is bigger than big.
This is technically correct, but most companies (at least in the US) take the easy way out, just like they do for hiring. No college degree means no job offer.
A well functioning IT organization will not be vulnerable to a single malicious person, but having been in the industry for almost 30 years at this point, the number of corporations functioning to that level in IT is small.
The fact that most organizations are more concerned about lowering costs and increasing profits instead of quality means that managers take the easy way out... it's cheaper to just not hire anyone they deem a risk and not worry about improving IT's functioning because they don't see any downside to that in the time frame that concerns them.
Consider Netflix's ChaosMonkey (or whatever their new simian name they have now). It messes with your IT infrastructure automatically to ensure that your software/system can handle these regular problems. Developers have to consider that hey, these things are going to happen all the time (rather than relying on luck that it doesn't happen) and they build super resilient systems. You ever even heard of a Netflix outage?
Now ask yourself this: How would you build your security infrastructure/system given the knowledge that literal convicted criminals would have access to some parts of the system? You'd become very inventive, creative, and build the world's best system. AAA (authentication, authorization, accounting) security? You'd find some new A's to add just to be sure.
If your system can't handle convicted criminals access it, how will it handle the ones who didn't get caught but now work for you?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/06/the-support...
Anyone familiar with contemporary interviews have insight/examples on what “blank-canvas” problems are?
For backend, a classic one is how do you design a basic twitter clone that can handle a tweet by a popular person going to their millions of followers.
My 30 years in the industry gives me a gut hunch anyone can be a successful coder. I hope these folks prove it.
I mean, yeah? Those things sound like they’re precisely the kind of stuff that’s the domain of non-profits and the government. Why would we expect Slack or other tech companies to be helping random people with housing or social support?
The private sector does help here, indirectly, with taxes that go to support such programs. And it’s the government that sets the tax rate and decides where revenue goes, not the private sector.
You can blame the government, or the people who voted them in, but blaming Slack and co. is silly. It’s not their job, and it shouldn’t be: you don’t want the institutions with profit motive to be the ones handling charitable works. That’s part of the whole reason we have a government.
The US government does not currently have a democratic mandate to operate as the social welfare state. Consequently hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of people are immorally (by my own standards) disadvantaged and with no means or realistic opportunity to better themselves.
So if a private company (or shareholders-forbid: a publicly traded company)’s leadership feels a moral obligation to help those left behind by the state - more power to them.
Until the US truly embraces the “for the people” part of the “by the people, of the people, for the people” part of their unofficial motto it really is up to private entities to make-up the difference.
[1] UPDATE: To clarify - I don't mean that I somehow know what's in someone else's best interests - because I don't - nor their exact reasons for voting for a particular party or candidate - but I mean that it's still possible to _objectively_ say that many people vote for ideological or sentimental reasons that appeal to them (which is part of democracy!) with - or without - having done (for example) a spreadsheet comparisons of how each candidate's manifesto politics would affect their cost of living, quality of living, economic expectations, and so on. I can respect someone voting against their interests for ideological or moral reasons - provided it's done with informed consent. I'm not convinced that most- or even a plurality - of GOP voters in recent US elections sat down and made a spreadsheet and said "yup - I'm okay with rising the cost of my individual health insurance provided it means I have the choice to refuse healthcare coverage" (and that is not a misrepresentation of the ACA and its opponents' stated positions).
So by all means - vote against your own interests - provided you do it with informed consent - otherwise you _really_ are voting against your own interests.
I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents.
You think the reason they won’t vote the way you want is because they don’t know what’s good for themselves. You might want to consider an alternate: they don’t want someone like you deciding what’s good for them and forcing it down their throats.
Because they want change.
Condescension has nothing to do with it. It's empirically observable that a proportion of the electorate doesn't vote in its own best interests.
It's also empirically observable there's an entire industry of media outlets, think-tanks, journalists, bloggers, TV presenters, radio commenters, online commenters, and other influencers which is paid huge sums every year to make sure this doesn't change.
And unfortunately a major problem with proportional representation is there's no one single best way to achieve PR - any campaign to achieve PR would be stymied by splitting the pro-PR faction between STV and IRV, for example.
Labour's official position is to negotiate a deal and then hold a final referendum. [1]
So there were three positions in the election (leave, remain, vote again) and leave won the largest share of the popular vote.
The majority of the country doesn’t want the Tories to negotiate the withdrawal. But that’s what is going to happen.
PR would probably lead to even more parties with each having fewer votes and none ever having a majority.
My observation of the BBC's coverage was that while they at least didn't put a positive spin on the Tories, it felt like they were doubling-down on anti-Labour and anti-LibDem negativity. I still don't believe the BBC is in any way biased towards any particular political party, but I feel there's a feedback-loop somewhere in the media system. Once the meme "Corbyn is unelectable" becomes a meme and people don't stop to question it - or it becomes self-referential ("Corbyn is unelectable because the people believe he's unelectable") then we have a problem.
(Disclaimer: I would not actually vote for Corbyn myself - just saying).
How do you explain away people who didn't vote for Corbyn because... they would prefer a non-anti-semitic leader? I have a hunch. You might say, "Well these people were duped. He isn't IN FACT an anti-semite." But, now the goal posts have changed and the discussion moves to whether certain claims are true, not whatever is in someone's best interest.
The thought that people you disagree with are simply fools because they don't know what is in their best self-interest, is not only arrogant, it's patently just not how the world works. Like always, it all comes down to whether your position or their position actually maps to reality. And if you think that you can't be wrong, or that it isn't likely that you get at least some things wrong, then your position is already hosed (not to mention lacks epistemological humility).
I'm not sure that's true (that it's empirically observable without bias). The trouble comes from an assumption that by giving up X (that you value only a little) to achieve Y (that you value a lot), that those other people would be better off, when they simply value X a lot more than you do (or Y a lot less). When they consistently vote to prioritize X over Y, you empirically observe some outcomes, apply your own weights to each factor, and conclude they're acting against their own best interests and cite your evidence as empirical proof, ignoring the judgment you applied when determining the weights.
I don't think people exhibiting this bias (unconscious or conscious) are intending to be condescending, but it comes across that way quite often.
Some people prefer to live in a society where the government has minimal power/influence over citizens' daily life (X) while other people prefer to live in a society where government power and influence is strong and consistently exercised to protect the most vulnerable (Y). They're different choices.
Is it condescending if it's true, though?
And the right views poor people who vote for Democrats as lazy grifters just looking for a handout, naive fools in the pocket of globalist elites, or else not "real Americans" like themselves.
It isn't only the left or Democrats which have a problem in this regard. The right/Republican end of the spectrum is fueled by its naked contempt for everyone outside their camp.
It's nice that we have a choice.
Unfortunately, my state went for Kang.
- Persuasion: I think that you are mistaken as to what is in your best interest, here's why my approach would benefit you more.
- Negotiation: Here's how we can work together to find a solution that meets both of our interests.
- Zero Sum: I recognize that this isn't in your best interest but I don't care because its in my interest.
Due to the power of Fox News and the Republican party's current willingness to ignore facts, I don't think persuasion is possible.
Similarly, the strategy that Fox News and the Republican party have taken of promoting polarization, demonizing the other side, using straw-man arguments, etc.[1] Makes it impossible to have the kind of nuanced debate and compromise that would be necessary for a negotiated solution.
Therefore, it seems like all that is left is a zero sum solution. If the other side won't listen or negotiate then the only option remaining is to implement our policies whether they like them or not.
I'm not saying that's an ideal situation, but it seems to me that its the reality that we find ourselves in.
[1] To be fair, I think that progressives do this to a worrying extent as well. However, I single out the Republican party due to the degree to which they have focused on this strategy and because the fact that many Republicans get all of their news from Fox makes the strategy almost unassailable.
The other issue is that many of the issues that progressives are concerned about (e.g. climate change, inequality, gun control) require action by society as a whole. Ideally we would negotiate and find policies that address the priorities of both progressives and conservatives. However, that doesn't currently seem to be possible.
Please read the federalist papers.
I do not want the equivalent of a yellow vests movement happening here.
Gerrymandering is a huge issue, and it makes it so that moderates don’t have to exist because of safe districts.
The fundamental disagreement about priorities between the parties somehow turned into disagreement about facts in the past decade.
I believe that something like proportionate representation is a better solution. It would still allow minority populations (e.g. rural areas) to band together and get representatives elected that reflect their priorities. However, since the system is no longer winner takes all it promotes finding solutions via negotiation.
Interestingly, right-wing parties understand this quite well. If they loose an election you never hear that they have to convince moderates. Instead they get even more radical.
Demonizing the other size is impressively the other way. It's happening whenever you see people flinging words like racist, sexist, fascist, and nazi.
Moreover, there is a difference in calling spade a spade, and hate speech.
In terms of demonization, I think its fair to use words like racist, sexist, and fascist when they are accurate descriptions. Before the Trump administration I was opposed to using those terms because I didn't feel that it was clear that they were accurate. However, I do think they are accurate now.
In my opinion, Nazi is only a reasonable term when the person is actually advocating for Nazism which, other than actual Neo-Nazis, is very rare. The only example I can think of where it might be valid was when Trump said that there were good people on both sides of a Neo-Nazi rally.
What I mean is that any attempt to change policy/society/laws/government innately involves deciding that something would be good for society as a whole and then attempting to get laws put in place that force it to happen.
Therefore, your post doesn't seem to be actionable since it basically boils down to "don't do anything".
Also I think maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say clearly. My point is that all political positions, not just socialism, amount to trying to force the laws to reflect how you feel society should operate.
In my view, evidence that people vote against their own interests is the massive industry that exists for the purpose of making that happen.
The respectful middle ground, if there is one, is that how people vote relative to their own interests is a worthy topic and debate, but that the debate might make a few people uncomfortable.
It's fucking amazing.
Who two? Every next comment was written by a different person.
Partisan arguments tend to go poorly on nice civil web forums, and I'd expect to attract the attention of the moderators if I were to start one.
The founders who wrote the First Amendment clearly disagreed with that.
The “freedom from religion” reading of the first amendment is, besides being atextual, utterly non-sensical. It reads the Framers to have banned, sub silentio, practices with respect to public religion that were utterly routine at the time the amendment was adopted.
Because people love it when their representative brings home the pork but they hate it when the other guy does it.
It's not possible for people in one district to elect a representative who could individually eliminate all wasteful government programs, but it is possible for them to send in somebody who will at least bring them back a proportionate share of the loot from the heist. Is that not rational behavior absent some coordination mechanism to get all the other districts to stop electing kleptocrats at the same time?
Maybe better would be to vote for someone willing to do that while also pushing for structural change to remove those incentives, but that's assuming there is any candidate running with that position.
It's hard to believe that every position of a candidate you vote for is in your interests because that's basically never the case.
Suppose I support the elimination of most federal programs and taxation (let the states do it) but I think that a federal carbon tax which is paid out as a dividend to the citizens is a great idea, because it's a national/global issue and pricing externalities is the legitimate purview of government. Who shall I vote for? I have never seen a single candidate proposing to do both of those things.
In a sense the only way for me not to vote against my interests is to stay home. At the same time, there are two candidates on the ballot that are very much not the same as one another. So it's not so much a matter of "voting against your own interests" as choosing which of your interests outweigh the others.
But assuming that anybody who makes a different choice than you is a fool is very condescending.
If you ask people if Labour was good for the economy and would be good for the economy, you’ll largely get a negative response.
Unfortunately it’s easy for people’s opinions to be shaped with zero basis in fact and when this happens it’s easy for them to vote against their own interest.
This has little to do with a condescending left and much more to do with how well the Conservstives play and are supported by the media.
The bits about nationalising everything were certainly very different so I don’t think this claim holds up to scrutiny.
I also find it interesting that you stop at 2007. What happened in 2008 that might call into doubt Labour’s management of the economy?
Labour would like their voters to forget it was them who bailed out the banks too.
The blowup of Lehman Brothers (US investment bank), ABN Ambro (Dutch bank recently acquired by RBS), Northern Rock (overextended British building society), Kaupthing (Iceland), and Anglo-Irish (despite the name, entirely Irish)? Yes, I'm sure that's all the fault of the Labour government.
But they're happy with other people deciding what's good for them; people who've decided that what's good for them is to be poorer and sicker?
If they could be tricked into becoming richer and healthier, without realising they're doing it by voting for commie socialism or whatever scare label is in vogue, is that wrong? Is there some morality there, like life is an art project.
Seriously; is that wrong? Is it more wrong to tell people what will make them richer and healthier, or to let them be poorer and sicker?
I do NOT think people understand what their parties are telling them because both sides lie dramatically.
Democrats do not present realistic plans with costs on their social programs, and Republican media and politicians typically say the exact opposite of what the real plan is. I used to love their smaller government push until they touted cutting public services to save 40 million as a huge victory for the budget while giving Lockheed et. al. A billion dollar contracts... So smaller government, sure, but NOT balancing a budget as it was claiming to try for.
So if you subscribe to partizan political sources, both parties only feed you information that support their party line, and the facts are elsewhere, if they are even available. Presidents keep breaking all promises they make on the trail.
That motivation can be especially strong when the party that you thought represented your economic interests turned out not to do that as much as you'd have liked.
There's a reason our highest form of punishment is to isolate. It's not our functional unit of existing. To truly isolate us from others is to punish us perhaps worse than death. So what makes people think the individual should be our highest functional unit of decision-making after millions of years evolving otherwise?
This is something I wonder if western thought deserves to lose its crown over, if it can't course correct.
Disclosure: civic technologist, community organizer, biochemist
And if some people want to split off and do something different, diversity is a good thing too.
I've studied in democratic reform, and work in civic tech space. There's a book called _Democracy for Realists_ which I highly recommend. It's a wonderful book, but it eviscerates most of what we understand colloquially about democracy. (Or at least did for me)
You are walking around a piece of democracy that is entrenched in "folk democratic theory" -- things people talk about as being the basis of effective democracy. But in democratic theory, folk democracy appears to have much evidence against it, and very few serious academics advocate for it as an explanatory theory. It's telling is part of the glue perhaps, because systems must appear simple and understandable to its participants, or else it can be destabilized too easily :) the works for electoral systems too -- people need to feel like they understand it in order to trust it's outcomes, nevermind if first-past-the-post is truly best.
The individual is very flawed, and democracy might work despite it's individual nature, not because of it. Political parties and identity groups outside the original structure of democracy perhaps stabilize a system that puts decision-making power into a very ineffective unit. (The individual)
Anyhow, it's been awhile since I worked deeply on this stuff (and not as an academic myself), and I might be misspeaking some parts that an academic could correct me on, but I'm sure the general thrust of the above is true :)
> Democratic mandates are set by influencers.
This is a cop out: the electorate is still responsible for the politicians it puts in power. Don't let people off the hook for supporting terrible policies.
I disagree. After reading about famous propagandists from the past century I'm just depressed that it's so easy to manipulate enough of the public to vote a particular way.
Yes, it's the people's fault - but the people are fallable and _predictable_ enough to be played like a puppet.
If someone is an idiot and is convinced into doing something criminal even when they know it's wrong, that still doesn't get the person who tricked them into doing it off-the-hook - in serious crimes that's called aiding-and-abetting.
I'm curious about the list of countries that are democratic in name only (and also wondering about the time frames involved), would you elaborate?
Direct democracy populism where people are maximizing personal return should not be considered the standard that we aspire to. I'm not making a case for right or left wing politics, I'm just making a case against the idea that if people vote in such a manner that they will not personally benefit, particularly in the short run, that they are necessarily idiots that have been tricked into voting against their best interests.
Most voters are uninformed about most issues. It's effectively impossible to be informed about every issue. There are simply too many issues. Calling out GOP voters on ACA specifically just shows your partisanship.
> and that is not a misrepresentation of the ACA and its opponents' stated positions
If I was feeling generous, which I am not, I would say this is accurate but incredibly imprecise. In the context of this thread, it's simply flame bait.
I disagree. I'd wager most voters do perform such an analysis, albeit in their heads.
People generally vote for Republicans because they want lower taxes. People generally vote for Democrats because they want better-funded government services. Most voting is really that simple -- people want their lives to cost less, and they vote for the party they think is more likely to deliver that. The ideological trappings are largely post-hoc justifications for why this self-interest is virtuous.
Yet they expect congratulations. Slack's selfish commercial interest is entirely aligned with hiring cheap developers, but, they put out a press release and the atlantic magazine took it up.
I worked with a another charity that did a similar thing (not prisoners, but the underprivileged) and one of the companies we got some of them jobs at did the same thing.
The company got some cheap developers, avoided commission on a recruitment agency and then proceeded to issue a press release patting themselves on the back.
I dont blame government, as it is not and should not be the governments role to do this.
>Those things sound like they’re precisely the kind of stuff that’s the domain of non-profits and the government.
Non-Profits yes, government no
Government sole and only job should be to preserve and protect the rights of citizens. Expanding government beyond this role has always lead to disaster and human suffering
> you don’t want the institutions with profit motive to be the ones handling charitable works
While true in some sense, HN's continual hostility to profit is absurd. Profit motive is what leads innovation, what makes things cheaper, and what allows charity to feed 100 people with a $100-200 donation...
Profit Motive is what has brought the massive reduction in poverty world wide...
It was not government, it was Free markets that did this
I agree with you that completely abandoning profit motive would be a very bad idea. However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards. During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating; therefore, I don't think it is reasonable to conclude that profit motive would bring prosperity without also having government to constrain it.
Churches and Clubs are generally voluntary organizations on chooses to join, and can leave. Thus can not be classified as a government
I have no choice but to interact with the government and should I choose not to said government will put me in a cage and/or use violence against me to compel my activity,
I am sure you next comment will be "well you vote so you consented..." which is equally absurd of a notion for voluntary interactivity
>>>Throughout the vast majority of human history the role of government has not been just to preserve and protect rights
I am aware of this history, and almost universally it has lead to suffering, tyranny, and oppression
>>>However, any process can become harmful if it is allowed to run without limits or safeguards.
It is often governments and the legal system to provide the avenue of these abuses. Limiting liability, and shielding corporations via layers of liability shields, caps and other regulations
>>> During the time that poverty has been reduced worldwide we have had both profit motive and the government operating;
yes, and poverty would be ALOT lower if government was not "helping"
However, for those who are part of society, I feel that the purpose of society is to provide for the needs of its members.
I think that your analysis of history may be too simplistic. Certainly governments have caused suffering, tyranny, and oppression, but so has profit motive. By the same token, both profit motive and government has done a lot of good for people.
My overall objection is that you seem to be taking a very black and white approach. I agree that we shouldn't adopt a communist approach that rejects profit motive or an extreme collectivist approach that rejects individual rights. However, that doesn't mean that there is no role for society to provide for people's needs.
The economy is becoming more competitive in the upper 20%. This translates into heightened signaling around social issues for those in that bracket [1]. It's not a bad thing, and people do have their hearts in the right place, but the underlying status anxiety is real and it is an economic effect.
[1] https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/11/the-real-class-wa...
I’d agree with what you said because the reason you gave seems strong & compelling to me; the idea that profit motive might corrupt charity if in charge.
On the other hand, I dislike the idea that only government should “handle” social responsibility. (I think what we’re talking about is responsibility, not charity.) And in fact, today there are laws requiring social responsibility of the private sector, so in a very real sense it actually is their job.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibil...
The kind of thinking that separates the people & companies making money from helping our social outcasts, or just giving back to society in general, is exactly the kind of thinking that leads to having more social outcasts and growing income inequality. When rich people argue they should have no responsibility to pay taxes into social programs, what we end up with is more people who need social programs. Why shouldn’t it be everyone’s job to handle social improvement, including all the companies profiting from the environment that makes their profits possible?
> it’s the government that sets the tax rate and decides where revenue goes, not the private sector.
While that might be technically accurate, it seems misleading to frame it this way. The private sector has such massive influence on tax policy, it doesn’t even make sense to suggest the government does it and the private sector doesn’t. Lots of laws are effectively written by and for private companies, enough so that we have a serious problem with it and a name for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Like, what even would Slack be expected to do here for housing or health care? Slack can't change zoning regulations. They can't force hospitals to provide price transparency. Why expect them to do something, rather than just take their money and have the government do something with it, when the government has vastly more authority to act?
Is this really a black and white issue, do or don’t? I don’t feel that way at all.
Do you think private companies can “contribute” to the solutions alongside the government and the public, by being open to hiring non traditional workers, by having support programs that help people keep their jobs? Can companies encourage and support the government’s support programs, by enrolling the government’s help and joining together to pay for them, by writing corporate policy to foster non-traditional workers, by making work allowances for people who need more help?
> when the government has vastly more authority to act
I don’t agree with this framing. Large and small companies get local zoning laws changed all the time. If Slack was lobbying for zoning regulations near it’s business, it’s entirely likely they can, in fact, get them changed. Companies can, and do routinely, suggest regulation changes, participate in policy making, and the government listens and routinely acts on those requests, and involves private companies in the legislation process. When companies band together to get zoning changed, it happens even faster.
The government does not really have that much more “authority” than the rest of us when it comes to the basics of taking care of each other. This isn’t really an authority issue, it’s an issue of whether we care and take action, it’s an issue of what our goals are as a society, it’s an issue of whether we view it as our collective responsibility, or someone else’s responsibility. If we all think it’s someone else’s responsibility, and we do nothing and think of the government as the only solution, then we not only end up with a crappy solution, we are ceding our own authority as well.
If you look at this in a vacuum, I can see how that'd be attractive. But consider that this will obviously cost them -- and whatever other companies do the same -- money. Now, would you rather all those companies independently pursuing different ways of helping on a particular issue piecemeal, or that the government extract the money that would've been spent pursuing a more cohesive and coherent effort?
> Do you think private companies can “contribute” to the solutions alongside the government and the public, by being open to hiring non traditional workers, by having support programs that help people keep their jobs?
That's not the part I was responding to. When Slack accepts felons or Google uses renewable energy for data centers, that's being a good corporate citizen in the act of conducting their regular business. I think that's fine and good.
But what I quoted, was someone suggesting that Slack assist with things completely outside the scope of their business, like housing. Slack has nothing to do with housing, so the principle underlying that comment must be, "Slack should help these people (and maybe the community at large) in general, even in ways that have nothing to do with their business".
> Large and small companies get local zoning laws changed all the time.
Just look at the bay area as an example. Basically every company would LOVE to massively upzone everywhere for both office space and housing (because this benefits them), these companies are rich as hell, and yet they're woefully impotent at getting these things changed. The broader culture, especially for the politically connected, is against them, and they can do very little about that. Trying to swing their weight around would just result in a huge backlash, as many are already skeptical of how powerful they are.
> If Slack was lobbying for zoning regulations near it’s business, it’s entirely likely they can, in fact, get them changed.
I'm sorry, but this betrays ignorance of bay area politics. Even Google struggles to get changes, and they're ridiculously massive. Slack might be able to get changes if they were moving to a less popular city for tech that's more desperate for jobs, but if they stay in SF, they have very little influence. SF is lousy with high paying tech jobs, most people there don't really fear any particular company moving away, and thus the companies have little leverage relative to how rich they are.
Hah. That would be the idea yes, but we all know how much corporations like paying their tax.
It's in companies' interests to have a healthy economy with employed workers, with families bringing up the next generation, etc. But that's a very long term perspective relative to the stock market, which would much rather see lower taxes and higher work force participation for the next few quarters.
People voting for public policies are only a little bit better; old people vote for their benefits, middle age people vote against taxes, and young people vote for redistribution when they're aware enough to turn up.
With your comment, you provoked a flamewar that degenerated straight to bon mots like "Government is to govern.", "I’ve seen this on HN several times, and it always cracks me up. The condescension isn't dripping. It’s running in torrents." and "American Christians say that Jesus Christ is the only true way and that Islam is a false path". It swelled to over a hundred comments, completely dominating the page. Worse, it was sitting at the top when I saw it, crowding out all the discussion that curious readers and commenters are here for. That's not cool; that's the way a community like this destroys itself.
Tire fires like this are why the site guidelines explicitly ask: "Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm honestly not sure how much of the article -- or articles in general -- I could bring up without it potentially counting as an 'ideological tangent', as that seems like an awfully broad and ambiguous label. Just about everything is ideological to somebody.
I also don't see what about my comment exactly counts as flamebait. I wasn't overly abrasive, I didn't say anything particularly outrageous or extreme. It was a political sort of point, yes, but "how do we, as a society, help former criminals integrate back into society" is kind of inherently political, I think.
Your comment wasn't first-order flamebait, but it was a classic generic ideological tangent. Those two things are related, since generic ideological tangents mostly lead to flamewars. That's why they're included in that guideline.
In this case you picked a particularly weak point from the article, on a generic ideological issue, that was entirely tangential to the main topic (which is where all the specific information that could support non-generic discussion was), and posted a comment dismissing it, leading with a swipe ("I mean, yeah?"). That pretty much guarantees what we ended up with.
There's another guideline that's relevant here: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." There are two ways in which your comment arguably broke that rule. First, picking a weak and tangential point from the article to criticize is more marginal nitpicking than solid discussion. The "strongest plausible" rule applies at the article level as well.
But also: if I read the entire quote that you were objecting to, it's clear that that person's main point was that the private sector can't solve all the problems that come up for reintegrating former prisoners. In other words, the quote's point is exactly the same as yours. If you had adopted the strongest plausible interpretation, the "blaming Slack and co" provocation would have dropped out and there would have been nothing to complain about.
I hope it doesn't feel like I'm picking on you personally. These issues are common, which is why I post about them at length. The hope is to get the community to understand the patterns, so we can have more curious conversation and less bilious repetition.
Well, maybe it was from your perspective, as someone who obviously reads HN comments all the time. I was expecting maybe a handful of comments at most, and I sure as hell wasn't expecting people to suddenly start arguing about Brexit.
> The issue with your comment wasn't exactly that it was flamebait, but because it was a classic generic ideological tangent.
I take issue with this. It's true that what I was doing was going up a level of abstraction. But, like, that's an extremely common rhetorical thing to do, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Often there's a good point to be made there; obviously in this case I thought it was true of what I wrote, maybe you disagree, but I've seen your own comments do the same thing all the time to help explain a point, like about contrarianism.
It sounds like "generic ideological tangent" is just "going up a level of abstraction" in the case where it's more likely to start a flame war. But that's not always easily predictable, and even when it is, it essentially means you're shutting down points, not because the points themselves are bad, but because other commenters can't be trusted to restrain themselves from much more awful replies to that comment.
> you picked a particularly weak point from the article
Oh c'mon. Of course people are going to pick on the weak points, because within our minds the weak points are the bad points that we disagree with and want to say so. That people leap to speak when they think a point is dumb or wrong, more than when they think a point is good or okay, is entirely expected and normal and fine. When people hear something that sounds wrong to them, they feel a compulsion to speak out, to correct it, from their perspective. That's not a bad thing.
> that was entirely tangential to the main topic
Well, it didn't feel tangential to me. To me, the article is about how to help felons re-integrate into society, the quoted person was talking about how we need to support felons in other ways as well (which I agree with), and then, to borrow your language, took a swipe at the private sector for apparently not doing their part in those areas, blaming them essentially, which I felt was unfair and unrealistic. I really don't think "should the private sector do more here in other areas to support felons?" is tangential to the topic. To me it felt like one point among many.
> that person's main point was that the private sector can't solve all the problems
I disagree, I don't think that was her point at all. "the private sector has largely turned away from [these areas]" does not read like she's saying they can't, but that they don't, they won't, they've refused to.
edit: I'll try to be more careful in the future, but honestly, even earnestly trying, I'm not exactly sure what would make sense to change about my posting mindset. Try not to comment on points if they're too minor? Don't go up a level of abstraction to make points about more generic principles? These don't sound like good things to me.
edit2: I kind of see what you mean about the swipe. I can try to avoid that in the future, though I feel like it may be difficult without switching to a very dry/stiff posting style. "I mean, yeah?" is not a very abrasive or aggressive sort of comment. It's the written equivalent of a shrug. I'm aware that HN has high standards for civility, but I honestly did not expect such a sentence to breach that.
I'd rather not have technically proficient felons near passwords, credit card #s, and other personal information.
Edit:
I hate to sound like a Calvinist here, but you have to ask yourself how much a change in behavior is due to "rehabilitation", and how much of it is purely situational.
From what I've seen, they're model employees, until the setback--be it divorce, drugs, financial hardship, stress, etc. Then there is the backslide.
And you don't have to take my word for it. Recidivism rates are very very high.
This Aguirre guy in the article was at least an accessory to a shooting--even though they charged him with much more than that... not the kind of person I want near confidential information.
Peer pressure and "going along without thinking through the consequences" in a group of your friends at that age is a real thing and I don't think is strongly predictive of adult trustworthiness. (I generally tend towards the "law and order" side of things.)
And those with criminal records are allowed to practice law. Quite a few inspirational stories of this actually: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shon_Hopwood
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/business/are-felons-fit-t...
Isn't a felon's debt to society meant to be repaid after their sentence ends?
I'd much rather that people leave prison ready to be useful and/or productive members of society.
How many tech firms hire at zero--other than in situations like this limited-time virtue signaling / PR fodder opportunity?
Yet we hire kids straight out of college or a bootcamp and give them access to production data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#/media/File:Recidiv...
For white collar crime, which seems most relevant to the topic at hand, the recidivism rate is slightly less at about 48%.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=1451...
This possibly speaks more about how our current incarceration methods are failing society, than it does about any particular person who’s been incarcerated.
Would you mind re-reading the site guidelines and noting this one?
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
I personally feel the world is safer with felons having access to code and PII (or working in financial roles) and a good salary than it is when they are released and are back in the cycle of desperation -> crime -> incarceration -> release.
Or Senators, congresscritters or Presidents? Seen the TV news lately?
Your thought process is a huge contributor of recidivism. When someone cannot escape their situation, they continue doing what they need to to survive.
By the way the W.K. Kellogg Foundation is a eugenics group. What are they doing here? This program is so fishy.
Regardless of that perspective, here's a truth: most inmates will be released at some point. As a matter of fact, alot of the inequality you reference is a result of those with criminal backgrounds and the socioeconomic conditions that got them those backgrounds. We have a rich set of statistics about what happens to people in that situation: desperation -> crime -> prison -> repeat. Personally I don't like that world. I want to feel safe in my world, and anything we can do to short-circuit that recidivism cycle makes us all safer.
The "but our jobs! but our pay!" refrain is a common one, but our industry has WAY too many job openings for this to be a legit worry (the very presence of the h1b visa proves this). As for salary, as those jobs get filled, whether by bootcamp grads, or journeymen, or trained individuals with a criminal record - it will push income down for some. Some incomes are a product of scarcity, and you only need to look at a supply/demand curve to know what will happen to prices. In the late 90s, you'd spend tens of thousands of dollars to get a basic website. Now you can get one for a few hundred.
That is the immediate effect, for sure. But that isn't the issue.
Unless someone is convicted for life without parole, or a death penalty, then they likely will be released into the general population at some point.
Do you want them to have skills that might allow them to support themselves, or do you think a near term investment in education might be cheaper for society and more humane than releasing them with a situation where they have fewer opportunities to make a living?
Put a different way, this is about those who haven't committed crimes: those affected by future crime, and those who haven't yet committed crime but statistically are likely to (think children of the chronically incarcerated)
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Can you please avoid taking cheap potshots like this? They make it sound like you have an axe to grind, and undermine any point you're trying to make.
> Access to an elite organization
In what way is Slack elite?
These writers need to tone done their hyperbole.
Slack's a big name in the tech industry and there's certainly competition for jobs they have on offer.
As _elite_ as, say, Apple, Google or Facebook? Probably not - but they're not Accenture or Capita either.
Is Berkeley not an elite school, because it's less prestigious than Stanford?
What about profitability?
Did you see how many organizations are behind the effort? It probably took millions of dollars to go from zero to hiring ex-con coders.
I'm an ex-con developer. To be fair, my dev roots go back to childhood. I make around a quarter million a year in a mid-range cost of living city in the mid-west US.