The not-so-ideal candidate

I spent the last few days at UofA, recruiting. Overall it was great, as usual. However, there is a segment of candidates that can get really annoying.

Critical listening:
We have a thing called a program manager. Most people think it's the same as a project manager, or some kind of manager at least. I go out of my way to explain that it is neither of those things. Following it up with "well, I think I'm a good candidate and I have a lot of experience so I'm ready for a management role" will not endear you to me.

Or just not listening:
Many people come prepared with their sales pitch about how great they are. We like to ask questions and have a conversation. It's really hard to do that when unverifiable information is streamed non-stop at my face.

Hygiene:
Onions are delicious. So are other foods. Please clean them out of your mouth before you go talk to a bunch of people in tight quarters.

Compliments:
"You work for Microsoft? You should work for a modeling company" is ... awkward.

Clinginess:
Our process is simple: you talk to us and apply. Coming back day after day just to remind us who you are is, at best, going to do nothing for you.

Connecting:
Use your face-to-face time to make a connection and make me remember you. Don't come back to ask me for a business card because you couldn't find me on LinkedIn. First, I'm not on there. Second, I either already think well of you or I probably don't want to be inundated by the inevitable future followups.

Demands:
Has anyone else gotten back to you about that resume you dropped off yesterday? Yeah, neither have we. Please hold. Even worse is being confronted about "will I be hearing back from you?" or "am I the right fit?" Expect something non-committal.

Just plain out there:
Coming up to our booth and collecting swag while avoiding eye contact and reciting a manifesto about our oppressive ways and your eternal loyalty to Linux is ... I'm not even sure what to call that.

 

The police death epidemic

The general media has certainly left us with a narrative that police are at horribly increased risk; that it's much more dangerous to be a cop now than ever before.

In the vein of "things usually are getting better", I've compiled the number of police deaths over time, as well as adjusted for population. The charts show what I expected: Not only are police deaths steadily decreasing on an absolute scale, they're at their lowest rates ever when scaled for population. I've charted numbers over trailing 5 year windows to smooth out the some inevitable amount of year-to-year volatility.

Looking at the trends shows two eras of particularly bad casualty rates: prohibition (1920 to 1933) and the rise of cocaine/crack (late 70s and early 80s). Both of these eras came with, essentially, wars on the streets. And, of course, the 50s and 60s were just swell! The current rate is roughly 2/3 of the more recent peak.

Of course, comparing absolute numbers over the course of history does not account for the rising population. If things were the same, we'd expect the rate to scale with population. The second trendline shows office deaths per year, per 100million population (again over a trailing 5-year window). This chart shows a similar trend, but even more so. Prohibition and crack still jump out, but now prohibition looks twice as bad. And, the current rate is the lowest, ever, with rates falling to around 1/3 of the more recent spike.

While being a cop clearly has serious risks, there's never been a safer time to be one.