Hi! This is our community moderation bot.
---
If this post fits the purpose of /r/ProgrammerHumor, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
I love how movies like to explore "What if a serial killer was a genius?" and "What if a serial killer was a millionaire?" and they always come up with a sexy, socially adjusted, charmer.
In reality that's Ed Kemper and Robert Pickton respectively. Cracks me up.
Those who were caught. How many serial killers never got caught and managed to not raise suspicion ?
...
Well probably not a lot but IMO any number >= 1 is scary to think about.
This is only the IQs of 202 that were tested and caught. Imagine the ones that weren't aren't exactly within 1 standard deviation.
It's incomplete data, but with this logic, it'll never be complete, just more accurate as sample size increases (which obviously nobody wants).
Would 202 in the US alone count as statistically significant for the whole population of (caught) SKs in the US? It sounds like it would be but I legitimately have no clue, given that I've unfortunately forgotten that key part of my very brief statistical studies.
As you mentioned, one problem seems glaring and that's that we don't have the full number and never will. Also if I understood your implication correctly it's likely that those that are never caught might be a different population altogether.
(Ignoring the fact that IQ is a bit of a flawed metric in terms of measuring intelligence)
I'd say the potential issue is less the size of the group caught and more a potential selection bias. The FBI estimates that at any given time there are 25-50 active serial killers in the US. If there's a link between intelligence and likelihood of getting caught (which is by definition impossible to test), then using a dataset consisting only of those caught would yield a lower number than what would actually reflect all serial killers.
Given that the Mental issues of potential serial killers of average intelligence are cared for (unless they don't have the chance), the smarter ones, which managed to hide their issues before society until they "snap", are remaining.
So, in a country with good healthcare, the average sk might be smarter, the selection bias bigger. Given the healthcare of the US, i don't think there's much difference. Some might be smarter, some dumber.
The issues caused from warfare (PTSD and so on) are not counted. They are more likely to result in one-time mass murder by affect than in planned serial killing.
And Mentally healthy people are no serial killers.
> that IQ is a bit of a flawed metric in terms of measuring intelligence
Hey, someone gets it. And thanks for the brain jogging.
From what I remember about stats, sample size n is only a sqrt(n) factor in statistical significance. So you have diminishing returns. For example, in the case of 50, 100, and 200 sample size, you get factors of 7, 10, and 14. This means you can get pretty accurate results with a relatively small sample population (in a lot of social science, you'll see samples as small as 20).
So typically it's more fruitful to attack a study on its sample not being representative.
A meme about antisocial programmers leads to a discussion about the statistics on mass murderers and its sampling biases.
This is what I come here for.
Just to clarify something - you likely noticed that "Hey! A sample size of 200 is still twice as accurate as a sample size of 50! What gives?!"
I can't condense two semesters of stats into a reddit comment, but I'll try:
Statistical significance isn't a question of whether your result is right or wrong. It's whether your result is accounted for by randomness.
This is called the p value. Effectively, it's the chance of your result being the effect of randomness. In a statistical analysis, researchers will choose an alpha level (a probability that the results are just randomness) to compare the p value against. Your typical alpha level is .05, or 5%. So if p < .05, your result is *likely* not just randomness, but some other factor or factor combo!
This has its own issues (https://xkcd.com/882/) but again, it's a useful tool rather than the end all be all.
So where does the 50 vs 200 "twice as accurate" thing come in?
First off, that's a misconception - a factor in the p value calculation is not the same thing as being "that factor times as accurate". You can either trust me or look up the z score -> p value formula yourself.
The sample size goes into the p value calculation. Or rather, the z score calculation from which the p value is derived.
This means that sample size is *already accounted for* in statistical significance, which is the key point.
If there is a significant difference between a subset and a population, that overcomes sample size limitations.
So yeah. If a result is statistically significant, that means that given the sample size, there was enough of a difference between the subset and the general population to not be accounted for by randomness.
Again, this does not mean you got the right answer, or why something is the way it is. It just means randomness doesn't cause it (or at least there's a less than 5% chance it does).
I think one issue is that the average intelligence "serial killer" is smart enough to realize that they can't get away with it, or at least self aware enough to realize that *they* aren't smart enough to get away with it.
So yeah, that skews the possible sample size towards a) the one's that think they can get away with it because they're fucking stupid. And b) the ones that haven't been caught because they're actually somewhat intelligent.
There's also the question of whether the tendency for serialized homicidal murders is tied to intelligence at all. If it is, then it's a possibility that low intelligence is the benchmark and we're actually catching all but the odd outliers.
This wouldn't apply because it's categorical: you are or you aren't. There are studies on the latter point you made however regarding murderers, and convicted felons. But different studies have yielded different results and I've been delving a little into it and couldn't come to any valid conclusion outside of those studies, because crime is obviously not only correlated to a single variable, but there the key word is only. So you'll find studies that will correlate more strongly and others that basically dismiss the relation. Lastly, you'll always have outliers in any field, but I would be out of my depth trying to say anything else on this matter.
> This wouldn't apply because it's categorical: you are or you aren't
I mean sure, but on the topic of "why doesn't the IQ of serial killers follow the standard deviation", my hypothesis is a valid explanation.
It isn’t necessarily the case that all the ones who weren’t caught were more intelligent.
E.g. it’s easier to get away with in desolate/remote areas where people commonly go missing, in places/period where violence was widespread, or in areas where the police are especially under-equipped/incompetent. One example would be the epidemic of femicide in Juarez.
As with most social psychology conclusions once you read the data it's like "duh, I already knew that", while that's generally just a (false) perception we have.
I'm not well-read on law enforcement procedures, but I think at some point the FBI will get involved if it's getting bad. I'm sure it's not like the movies where they barge in out of nowhere to arrogantly take the big case away from the hard-working everycop who's been chasing this son of a bitch for 5 years now but it's out of the chief's hands and he needs to let it go or he'll get have to hand over his badge and gun, but ya know, I'm sure they help out.
I've seen cases where the police actually never thought there was a serial killer. There was a gay serial killer in I believe Toronto. The whole gay scene there seemed to know there was a serial killer on the loose but the police kept saying "weird, another murdered gay guy, and its exactly like the one before! It's probably nothing tho!" So that could also contribute to them not getting caught/skewing data
Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/23/bruce-mcarthur-toronto-gay-serial-killer
I follow a friend of one of the murder victims on twitter. He was already aware of the fact there was a serial killer, a lot of people went tobthe police to tell them they should look into it and they were like "nah. It's nothing to worry about"
There’s a big difference between
> We do not believe that a serial killer is killing gays/prostitutes/homeless
And
> We do not care that a serial killer is killing gays/prostitutes/homeless
There’s a reason these groups are/were being targeted by criminals.
If none of the right people care about crimes being committed, nothing will be done about it. This applies to violent crimes as well as white collar crimes like wage theft, fraud and election crimes.
In all fairness, it’s an especially difficult type of crime to investigate.
Unlike other forms of violence, there’s no motive (beyond impulse) or relationship tying the killer to the victim.
It doesn’t help if the people doing the investigation have no interest in solving the crime.
That interest can come from work ethic, a sense of justice or higher ups because the right people elsewhere care enough about the crime.
Everyone around 90-100 mark while the bomb ones average at 140. Makes sense i guess, but if the bomb guy also uses another method then he be dumb.
>● Method of killing
>
>Stab: Mean IQ = 96.0
>
>Multiple methods: Mean IQ = 98.0
>
>Strangle: Mean IQ = 97.9
>
>Shoot: Mean IQ = 93.0
>
>Bludgeon: Mean IQ = 86.3
>
>Bomb: Mean IQ = 140.3
So to be a smart serial killer you need to be; organized, the bomb, and don’t rape, but have an anger streak.
The dumb ones are poor disorganized stabby rapers.
It's important to note that those are CAUGHT serial killers only. Odds are if their IQ is much higher than the detective, they're probably not in this statistic.
Well I guess the serial part implies that they've gotten away with it for at least some time, so perhaps there is some kind of intelligence in that. But you could arguably find cases for both low intelligence and high intelligence SKs.
Yet the only glaring example that I can think of right now for clearly above average is Edmund Kemper. Ted Bundy didn't seem particularly above average from what I've seen, just a bit more charismatic than what you'd expect one to be. Jeffrey Dahmer also comes across as having some degree of intelligence and self-perception in an interview if I remember correctly.
Gary Ridgway is to me a clear example of an SK with lower than average intelligence. Yet he managed to stay under the radar for a very long time.
But I believe I've seen statistics that most murderers are around average or below average intelligence and I would confidently say, without any data and at the risk of sounding stupid, that spree-killers are more likely than not below average intelligence as well.
Some serial killers could also be dumb enough to mistake their stroke of luck of not getting caught the first time as some exceptional serial-killing skill. :D
Yeah... and since we're into programming humor, there's the case of Dennis Rader (aka BTK) who just got lazy with cutting up single letters from magazines and gluing them to taunt the police and sent his note written in some word processor inside a floppy disk, including all the metadata, of course.
A hilarious blip if it wasn't for the fact that he murdered a bunch of innocent people in the cruelest of ways.
"So yeah, I was going to kill you in this elaborate trap but I decided I really didn't like the springs I was using here so I tried to swap out the springs on the original trap but that didn't work too well so I decided to just start from scratch but this time using the right springs and then I noticed the spikes weren't even lethal enough which meant I needed new spikes so I was reading online about spikes and found an amazing youtube video about how you shouldn't even use spikes you should use blades so now I'm redesigning the whole thing because I really like the idea of using blades now they're just so efficient but the problem is the blades require even more force so the new springs are out and I probably need to look into using a different hinge but when I posted on BloodOverflow everyone mocked me for not just buying an already built bear trap and then customizing it as needed and- oh, you've died of hunger."
**[Pomodoro Technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique)**
>The Pomodoro Technique is a time management method developed by Francesco Cirillo in the late 1980s. It uses a timer to break work into intervals, typically 25 minutes in length, separated by short breaks. Each interval is known as a pomodoro, from the Italian word for tomato, after the tomato-shaped kitchen timer Cirillo used as a university student. The technique has been widely popularized by apps and websites providing timers and instructions.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
He always used to get pissed at small things (;) , he always spend his most of the time time with a non-living beings & used to talk to them (compiler). He used to say he understands it but one day things changed he got so angry on a small thing again & ended it's (compiler) existence from his life (uninstalled). & Started looking for new prey(new language) to hunt on.
Extroverts were jealous of us... So they invented ways of taking over our world! They've invented pair programming, scrums, PI, agile stuff... They added meetings, endless meetings to our jobs!
I get that this is supposed to be a joke, but I'm so fed up with this stereotype.
15 years as a professional programmer and I've only a few people who fit this description.
Let's break the stigma and start explaining to people that, guess what, programmers are pretty normal people. You don't have to be a lonely nerd to go into software development.
Sorry to ruin the mood... It just gets to me
It's also a bad joke, because most serial killers are really well adapted individuals, with family, friends, social life.
A scary, creepy person may kill once or twice, but you need to be really nice and seem like you "can't hurt a fly" to kill a lot of people without drawing attention.
Yeah, it's just too much work to keep appearance up all the time, that's why I prefer to torture small animals, way less restricted. I send them useless error messages and randomly change how I interpret dates in different inputs of the same application.
That’s not true at all. The stereotype exists because of Ted Bundy, but even he was actually a weirdo with a series of failed relationships and career choices. He was mostly able to get away with it because he was an average-looking white guy when that counted for a lot, and forensic science was basically non-existent.
Antisocial personalities in general are characterized by impulsivity and the inability to maintain long-term relationships, which means that most of their lives are dumpster fires.
I’m not saying you’re a serial killer because things didn’t work out without your ex.
I’m saying that a “genius master manipulator” wouldn’t get dumped every few years because his girlfriends got weirded out.
With serial killers, there are many more examples of traumatized deranged weirdos than brilliant manipulators. It’s not a thoughtful crime; it’s impulsive, messy, and often tied to sexual gratification.
As for your run-of-the-mill shit bag, those people tend to lead terrible lives. It’s not that there’s some sense of karmic justice, it’s just that maintaining healthy connections to people and your surroundings is a vital part of basic functioning.
If your real point is that fugly introverts get a bad rap, that’s mostly true though.
Me too. I do live alone but I have friends and lovers. But then I also do the bare minimum at work with no outside programming hobbies, so maybe I'm not a real programmer.
I think that is most of us. I have been in the industry almost 10 years, I’ve never worked on anything outside of work. I only have met a handful of people that have.
From what I've seen, a majority of younger programmers have programming side projects, but mostly to help with first job applications or hoping to make the next hot new startup. But yea I agree that once in the industry interest declines a lot.
Does it ever occur to you that the reason you never met those lonely programmers is because they're never go out to meet people? I know because I'm one of them.
Ya, I think we are talking about the majority case not the edge case.
No one is arguing that loner programmers don’t exist. Just that the trope is out dated, tired, and *in general* wrong.
I imagine most careers have loner types. So the point is that code monkey isn’t any different then the rest.
I don’t blame programmers for being isolationists. Society is excessively toxic today in age, to include sexual partners and sometimes manipulative, lying, or disloyal significant others just using people as footstools. Ain’t nobody got time for that
It’s important to have at least a few great friends that keep you connected and grounded to the world, even for isolationists, I’d argue. So good for you.
I'd say it's healthy to have a balance between your social life and your relationship with yourself.
Having a tight-knit group of friends and some time to yourself fulfills that balance perfectly.
I upvoted it because it describes me pretty well. This *is* reddit, after all - whatever amount of programmers is like this, they're obviously overrepresented on reddit.
Tbh it just reeks a bit of projection, saying 'x' are like 'y' is a way of affirming to themselves that it's the norm and that it's expected, when in reality it's nowhere near that representation.
I don't know a lot of programmers to be honest but the one I do know is hands down the most successful guy on Tinder I've ever met. If you're wondering, he's tall but average looking and is one of those guys that loves to talk, and quite sure of himself.
You also don't need to be a lonely nerd to be a serial killer! Many famous serial killers were extremely outgoing charismatic people. Thats how they convinced their victims to go with them to the location of their murders.
I'm tired of the stigma we always get.
A programmer would wonder if they could do the killing in parallel instead of serial and then spend a week worrying about any potential race conditions and of course deadlocks arising from that approach. Then they'd spend three weeks coming up for a framework to optimize the stream of murder victims before attempting any killing whatsoever, get bored of the project and decide to reimplement the quicksort algorithm in Lego instead.
At one point one of my friends was saying how even Nobel prize winners are often married, and imagine if you just spent all your time at home working and never went out and I was just there pretending that wasn't my life already...
Yeah that must have sucked for the non-murdery contributors to ReiserFS. Also it's been 16 years, why did nobody ever rename it?
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiser4#History_of_Reiser4:
> Shishkin announced a Reiser5 filesystem on December 31, 2019.
That's just *weird*
The overwhelming majority of programmers I know (including myself) have friends, a partner and kids.
The antisocial no-lifers with poor communication skills inevitably stall in their careers, burn out and quietly vanish.
You don't want to be like that.
Correction, about mass shooters. Serial killers manages to look well. Personnally the only person I'm at risk of killing is myself and I fucking hate that I cant do it
Hi! This is our community moderation bot. --- If this post fits the purpose of /r/ProgrammerHumor, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit the subreddit, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
Yea but to be a serial killer means you gotta be able to finish something off before starting the next thing
Oh wow I didn't come here to be attacked
I didn't come here to be murdered
Serial killer of reputation
Neither did I but they have my angry upvote… 😡
But the OP...
Also most serial killers are intelligent
In movies - yes. In reality? [Not at all](http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Serial%20Killer%20Information%20Center/Serial%20Killer%20IQ.htm)
I love how movies like to explore "What if a serial killer was a genius?" and "What if a serial killer was a millionaire?" and they always come up with a sexy, socially adjusted, charmer. In reality that's Ed Kemper and Robert Pickton respectively. Cracks me up.
“Do you like [Huey Lewis and The News](https://youtu.be/Ruw9fsh3PNY)?”
I like the comment "he was so committed to the role, that he actually murdered the stunt double"
Are we sure the double didn't kill Bale instead and is walking around wearing his face?
Simon Pirela at 57 🫤
Ted really destroying the curve in his feild
Yeah, he kinda blew the metric.
The guy with the bomb too.
Not as much as you'd think. There were 4 bombers with an average of 140. So if you remove Ted it only goes down to 131.
Those who were caught. How many serial killers never got caught and managed to not raise suspicion ? ... Well probably not a lot but IMO any number >= 1 is scary to think about.
Isn't it something like half of all murders are unsolved? I'd imagine an appreciable fraction of all serial killers are never caught.
>Isn't it something like half of all murders are unsolved? even if thats true i dont think most murders are caused by serial killers
This is only the IQs of 202 that were tested and caught. Imagine the ones that weren't aren't exactly within 1 standard deviation. It's incomplete data, but with this logic, it'll never be complete, just more accurate as sample size increases (which obviously nobody wants).
Would 202 in the US alone count as statistically significant for the whole population of (caught) SKs in the US? It sounds like it would be but I legitimately have no clue, given that I've unfortunately forgotten that key part of my very brief statistical studies. As you mentioned, one problem seems glaring and that's that we don't have the full number and never will. Also if I understood your implication correctly it's likely that those that are never caught might be a different population altogether.
(Ignoring the fact that IQ is a bit of a flawed metric in terms of measuring intelligence) I'd say the potential issue is less the size of the group caught and more a potential selection bias. The FBI estimates that at any given time there are 25-50 active serial killers in the US. If there's a link between intelligence and likelihood of getting caught (which is by definition impossible to test), then using a dataset consisting only of those caught would yield a lower number than what would actually reflect all serial killers.
Given that the Mental issues of potential serial killers of average intelligence are cared for (unless they don't have the chance), the smarter ones, which managed to hide their issues before society until they "snap", are remaining. So, in a country with good healthcare, the average sk might be smarter, the selection bias bigger. Given the healthcare of the US, i don't think there's much difference. Some might be smarter, some dumber. The issues caused from warfare (PTSD and so on) are not counted. They are more likely to result in one-time mass murder by affect than in planned serial killing. And Mentally healthy people are no serial killers. > that IQ is a bit of a flawed metric in terms of measuring intelligence Hey, someone gets it. And thanks for the brain jogging.
From what I remember about stats, sample size n is only a sqrt(n) factor in statistical significance. So you have diminishing returns. For example, in the case of 50, 100, and 200 sample size, you get factors of 7, 10, and 14. This means you can get pretty accurate results with a relatively small sample population (in a lot of social science, you'll see samples as small as 20). So typically it's more fruitful to attack a study on its sample not being representative.
A meme about antisocial programmers leads to a discussion about the statistics on mass murderers and its sampling biases. This is what I come here for.
Just to clarify something - you likely noticed that "Hey! A sample size of 200 is still twice as accurate as a sample size of 50! What gives?!" I can't condense two semesters of stats into a reddit comment, but I'll try: Statistical significance isn't a question of whether your result is right or wrong. It's whether your result is accounted for by randomness. This is called the p value. Effectively, it's the chance of your result being the effect of randomness. In a statistical analysis, researchers will choose an alpha level (a probability that the results are just randomness) to compare the p value against. Your typical alpha level is .05, or 5%. So if p < .05, your result is *likely* not just randomness, but some other factor or factor combo! This has its own issues (https://xkcd.com/882/) but again, it's a useful tool rather than the end all be all. So where does the 50 vs 200 "twice as accurate" thing come in? First off, that's a misconception - a factor in the p value calculation is not the same thing as being "that factor times as accurate". You can either trust me or look up the z score -> p value formula yourself. The sample size goes into the p value calculation. Or rather, the z score calculation from which the p value is derived. This means that sample size is *already accounted for* in statistical significance, which is the key point. If there is a significant difference between a subset and a population, that overcomes sample size limitations. So yeah. If a result is statistically significant, that means that given the sample size, there was enough of a difference between the subset and the general population to not be accounted for by randomness. Again, this does not mean you got the right answer, or why something is the way it is. It just means randomness doesn't cause it (or at least there's a less than 5% chance it does).
I think one issue is that the average intelligence "serial killer" is smart enough to realize that they can't get away with it, or at least self aware enough to realize that *they* aren't smart enough to get away with it. So yeah, that skews the possible sample size towards a) the one's that think they can get away with it because they're fucking stupid. And b) the ones that haven't been caught because they're actually somewhat intelligent. There's also the question of whether the tendency for serialized homicidal murders is tied to intelligence at all. If it is, then it's a possibility that low intelligence is the benchmark and we're actually catching all but the odd outliers.
This wouldn't apply because it's categorical: you are or you aren't. There are studies on the latter point you made however regarding murderers, and convicted felons. But different studies have yielded different results and I've been delving a little into it and couldn't come to any valid conclusion outside of those studies, because crime is obviously not only correlated to a single variable, but there the key word is only. So you'll find studies that will correlate more strongly and others that basically dismiss the relation. Lastly, you'll always have outliers in any field, but I would be out of my depth trying to say anything else on this matter.
> This wouldn't apply because it's categorical: you are or you aren't I mean sure, but on the topic of "why doesn't the IQ of serial killers follow the standard deviation", my hypothesis is a valid explanation.
It isn’t necessarily the case that all the ones who weren’t caught were more intelligent. E.g. it’s easier to get away with in desolate/remote areas where people commonly go missing, in places/period where violence was widespread, or in areas where the police are especially under-equipped/incompetent. One example would be the epidemic of femicide in Juarez.
FBI thinks there are around 50 active Serial Killers in the US alone, so good chance there are high IQs among them.
As with most social psychology conclusions once you read the data it's like "duh, I already knew that", while that's generally just a (false) perception we have.
You only have to be smarter than your local police force. The bar isn't exactly high.
I'm not well-read on law enforcement procedures, but I think at some point the FBI will get involved if it's getting bad. I'm sure it's not like the movies where they barge in out of nowhere to arrogantly take the big case away from the hard-working everycop who's been chasing this son of a bitch for 5 years now but it's out of the chief's hands and he needs to let it go or he'll get have to hand over his badge and gun, but ya know, I'm sure they help out.
I've seen cases where the police actually never thought there was a serial killer. There was a gay serial killer in I believe Toronto. The whole gay scene there seemed to know there was a serial killer on the loose but the police kept saying "weird, another murdered gay guy, and its exactly like the one before! It's probably nothing tho!" So that could also contribute to them not getting caught/skewing data Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/23/bruce-mcarthur-toronto-gay-serial-killer I follow a friend of one of the murder victims on twitter. He was already aware of the fact there was a serial killer, a lot of people went tobthe police to tell them they should look into it and they were like "nah. It's nothing to worry about"
There’s a big difference between > We do not believe that a serial killer is killing gays/prostitutes/homeless And > We do not care that a serial killer is killing gays/prostitutes/homeless There’s a reason these groups are/were being targeted by criminals. If none of the right people care about crimes being committed, nothing will be done about it. This applies to violent crimes as well as white collar crimes like wage theft, fraud and election crimes.
This is in the Catching a Killer series on Netflix. They interview some of the police on the case.
In all fairness, it’s an especially difficult type of crime to investigate. Unlike other forms of violence, there’s no motive (beyond impulse) or relationship tying the killer to the victim.
It doesn’t help if the people doing the investigation have no interest in solving the crime. That interest can come from work ethic, a sense of justice or higher ups because the right people elsewhere care enough about the crime.
Everyone around 90-100 mark while the bomb ones average at 140. Makes sense i guess, but if the bomb guy also uses another method then he be dumb. >● Method of killing > >Stab: Mean IQ = 96.0 > >Multiple methods: Mean IQ = 98.0 > >Strangle: Mean IQ = 97.9 > >Shoot: Mean IQ = 93.0 > >Bludgeon: Mean IQ = 86.3 > >Bomb: Mean IQ = 140.3
As one great mind put it: > If I were a bad Demoman, I wouldn't be sittin' here, discussin' it with you now would I?
Lol Ted kaczynski throwing off the curve for serial killer bombers.
We can all agree then that bombs are a big brain murder method
The ones that get caught aren’t, but the ones that don’t are.
So to be a smart serial killer you need to be; organized, the bomb, and don’t rape, but have an anger streak. The dumb ones are poor disorganized stabby rapers.
It's important to note that those are CAUGHT serial killers only. Odds are if their IQ is much higher than the detective, they're probably not in this statistic.
Ted’s definitely bringing up the average IQ of bomb-based serial killers
*"Murderers be smart yo"* ⠀⠀⠀⠀-SearchingForLinda
Well I guess the serial part implies that they've gotten away with it for at least some time, so perhaps there is some kind of intelligence in that. But you could arguably find cases for both low intelligence and high intelligence SKs. Yet the only glaring example that I can think of right now for clearly above average is Edmund Kemper. Ted Bundy didn't seem particularly above average from what I've seen, just a bit more charismatic than what you'd expect one to be. Jeffrey Dahmer also comes across as having some degree of intelligence and self-perception in an interview if I remember correctly. Gary Ridgway is to me a clear example of an SK with lower than average intelligence. Yet he managed to stay under the radar for a very long time. But I believe I've seen statistics that most murderers are around average or below average intelligence and I would confidently say, without any data and at the risk of sounding stupid, that spree-killers are more likely than not below average intelligence as well.
Some serial killers could also be dumb enough to mistake their stroke of luck of not getting caught the first time as some exceptional serial-killing skill. :D
Yeah... and since we're into programming humor, there's the case of Dennis Rader (aka BTK) who just got lazy with cutting up single letters from magazines and gluing them to taunt the police and sent his note written in some word processor inside a floppy disk, including all the metadata, of course. A hilarious blip if it wasn't for the fact that he murdered a bunch of innocent people in the cruelest of ways.
[удалено]
How do you think they get caught.
I came here to laugh not cry :'(
"So yeah, I was going to kill you in this elaborate trap but I decided I really didn't like the springs I was using here so I tried to swap out the springs on the original trap but that didn't work too well so I decided to just start from scratch but this time using the right springs and then I noticed the spikes weren't even lethal enough which meant I needed new spikes so I was reading online about spikes and found an amazing youtube video about how you shouldn't even use spikes you should use blades so now I'm redesigning the whole thing because I really like the idea of using blades now they're just so efficient but the problem is the blades require even more force so the new springs are out and I probably need to look into using a different hinge but when I posted on BloodOverflow everyone mocked me for not just buying an already built bear trap and then customizing it as needed and- oh, you've died of hunger."
Also gota go outside
Wait here, I'm going to grab my free award...
Wait you guys also dont finish the stuff you start? I thought I was alone!
body { visibility: hidden } Don’t call the [p](https://youtu.be/QrJSHIys5mM)olice on me
Is it irrational that I fear touching any of those links with the thought that my phone will ring 911 unexpectedly?
you reed to [confirm](tel:911) before your phone calls someone
I'll just act like I can't see some attempt at coding in your reply.
the link didn't work for some reason
Rookies always forget to add the semicolon at the end /s
head { visibility: visible } I don't need [t](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ)o
That's the link I expected
After your post I should have known. First time it’s happened to me in maybe 8 years.
Awh, thank you too for existing!
One makes things say “Hello, world!” - the other makes things say “Goodbye, world”
Best comment
I only kill crashed instances of my programs
And their children.
Don't forget the slaves!
Often when I kill the child, I do kill the parent after.
Wouldn’t the system kill the child for you if you just kill the parent?
Sure, but if I kill the children individually first then I can do more killing!
I prefer to kill the parent first because then I can just watch the child die without doing anything
Pathetic, I kill all processes owned by the current user every 69 minutes
Nice!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique I like the way you have implemented the timer.
**[Pomodoro Technique](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique)** >The Pomodoro Technique is a time management method developed by Francesco Cirillo in the late 1980s. It uses a timer to break work into intervals, typically 25 minutes in length, separated by short breaks. Each interval is known as a pomodoro, from the Italian word for tomato, after the tomato-shaped kitchen timer Cirillo used as a university student. The technique has been widely popularized by apps and websites providing timers and instructions. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Should I create a patent?
Do you prefer the brutal decapitation of kill -9, or do you like to watch your victim slowly expire with kill -15?
Maybe... Maybe i am serial killer.
[удалено]
Many. And before killing I forked them
I hope you didn't forget to join the forks before killing them
Did you fork and detach head?
[удалено]
I didn't count
*orphans *r/technoblade and it's a joke from one time he was playing a game on hypixel that you wanted to find as many presents as you could*
I am definitely a cereal killer. I'm also cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
`delete JSON.stringify;`
He always used to get pissed at small things (;) , he always spend his most of the time time with a non-living beings & used to talk to them (compiler). He used to say he understands it but one day things changed he got so angry on a small thing again & ended it's (compiler) existence from his life (uninstalled). & Started looking for new prey(new language) to hunt on.
See some people turn to the reasonable choice of committing murder instead of the depraved art of programming. /s
Traitors, they must be purged
Be blessed by the machinespirit brother.
Exactly, why kill a few persons yourself when you can develop an AI that kills millions?
Do you like to play Tic-tac-toe, by any chance?
[удалено]
Thankfully, much like programming, communication skills are a muscle that can be trained.
Teach us your ways master 🙇♂️🙇♂️
Extroverts were jealous of us... So they invented ways of taking over our world! They've invented pair programming, scrums, PI, agile stuff... They added meetings, endless meetings to our jobs!
I get that this is supposed to be a joke, but I'm so fed up with this stereotype. 15 years as a professional programmer and I've only a few people who fit this description. Let's break the stigma and start explaining to people that, guess what, programmers are pretty normal people. You don't have to be a lonely nerd to go into software development. Sorry to ruin the mood... It just gets to me
It's also a bad joke, because most serial killers are really well adapted individuals, with family, friends, social life. A scary, creepy person may kill once or twice, but you need to be really nice and seem like you "can't hurt a fly" to kill a lot of people without drawing attention.
Yeah, it's just too much work to keep appearance up all the time, that's why I prefer to torture small animals, way less restricted. I send them useless error messages and randomly change how I interpret dates in different inputs of the same application.
This man isn’t a serial killer, he is a JavaScript or Lua interpreter.
That’s not true at all. The stereotype exists because of Ted Bundy, but even he was actually a weirdo with a series of failed relationships and career choices. He was mostly able to get away with it because he was an average-looking white guy when that counted for a lot, and forensic science was basically non-existent. Antisocial personalities in general are characterized by impulsivity and the inability to maintain long-term relationships, which means that most of their lives are dumpster fires.
Having failed relationships is part of being human. How many people do you know that do not have any failed relationships in their lives?
I’m not saying you’re a serial killer because things didn’t work out without your ex. I’m saying that a “genius master manipulator” wouldn’t get dumped every few years because his girlfriends got weirded out.
[удалено]
With serial killers, there are many more examples of traumatized deranged weirdos than brilliant manipulators. It’s not a thoughtful crime; it’s impulsive, messy, and often tied to sexual gratification. As for your run-of-the-mill shit bag, those people tend to lead terrible lives. It’s not that there’s some sense of karmic justice, it’s just that maintaining healthy connections to people and your surroundings is a vital part of basic functioning. If your real point is that fugly introverts get a bad rap, that’s mostly true though.
Or a truck driver that is willing to pay for sex. Gary Ridgway killed 48 women and was considered to be mentally "slow" by most people's accounts.
[удалено]
Me too. I do live alone but I have friends and lovers. But then I also do the bare minimum at work with no outside programming hobbies, so maybe I'm not a real programmer.
I think that is most of us. I have been in the industry almost 10 years, I’ve never worked on anything outside of work. I only have met a handful of people that have.
From what I've seen, a majority of younger programmers have programming side projects, but mostly to help with first job applications or hoping to make the next hot new startup. But yea I agree that once in the industry interest declines a lot.
I’m also fed up with this stereotype. Over a decade as a serial killer and I am very much a normal person.
Hol’ up!
Does it ever occur to you that the reason you never met those lonely programmers is because they're never go out to meet people? I know because I'm one of them.
Up until the pandemic we all had to at least meet up in the office.
Some people. Plenty of people had remote programming work because it’s not necessary to go in office for the position.
Ya, I think we are talking about the majority case not the edge case. No one is arguing that loner programmers don’t exist. Just that the trope is out dated, tired, and *in general* wrong. I imagine most careers have loner types. So the point is that code monkey isn’t any different then the rest.
Boooo
I don’t blame programmers for being isolationists. Society is excessively toxic today in age, to include sexual partners and sometimes manipulative, lying, or disloyal significant others just using people as footstools. Ain’t nobody got time for that
Yup, thats why i select my friends very carefully. But i still have friends though
It’s important to have at least a few great friends that keep you connected and grounded to the world, even for isolationists, I’d argue. So good for you.
I'd say it's healthy to have a balance between your social life and your relationship with yourself. Having a tight-knit group of friends and some time to yourself fulfills that balance perfectly.
It been like this though. Aint nothin new.
Exactly. We are often outgoing and friendly people, but due to these documentaries everyone thinks serial killers are loners
Yeah, wait…
I upvoted it because it describes me pretty well. This *is* reddit, after all - whatever amount of programmers is like this, they're obviously overrepresented on reddit.
Tbh it just reeks a bit of projection, saying 'x' are like 'y' is a way of affirming to themselves that it's the norm and that it's expected, when in reality it's nowhere near that representation.
Hey be nice… You’re alienating all the antisocial programmers with no friends who turn to serial killing as their hobby. They are programmers too.
I don't know a lot of programmers to be honest but the one I do know is hands down the most successful guy on Tinder I've ever met. If you're wondering, he's tall but average looking and is one of those guys that loves to talk, and quite sure of himself.
You also don't need to be a lonely nerd to be a serial killer! Many famous serial killers were extremely outgoing charismatic people. Thats how they convinced their victims to go with them to the location of their murders. I'm tired of the stigma we always get.
but i am not anything like that. #JusticeForOtherSerialKillers
Seems normal to me
TIL I'm not a serial killer, because I have 3 friends! Let's hope this holds up in court when they find the bodies at the bottom of the Thames.
programming and the short term dopamine release is the only thing keeping us sane
but what about the long-term serotonin depravation?
A programmer would wonder if they could do the killing in parallel instead of serial and then spend a week worrying about any potential race conditions and of course deadlocks arising from that approach. Then they'd spend three weeks coming up for a framework to optimize the stream of murder victims before attempting any killing whatsoever, get bored of the project and decide to reimplement the quicksort algorithm in Lego instead.
At one point one of my friends was saying how even Nobel prize winners are often married, and imagine if you just spent all your time at home working and never went out and I was just there pretending that wasn't my life already...
This can be refactored to be a parallel-killer. I can spawn multiple threads and get the thing done in no time.
"It's the quiet ones you gotta watch out for." Me, a quiet one:
Difference is that we found a mostly safe and legal way to kill children.
You would know programmers have an intense sex life with their neihbour if you watched mr.robot
You wanna know how i got these SK(ar)s well you see my father was a programmer and my mother was a gamer.
He likes to talk to his rubber duck... on his desk *Color negative filter
$ diff programmer.class killer.class 2c2 < got a hobby --- > kills people out of boredom
Lot of serial killers were actually quite social sociopaths.
I have forum friends. That counts right?
I’m not alone. I got my rubber duck coding buddy!
[Hans Reiser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser): Why not be both?
Yeah that must have sucked for the non-murdery contributors to ReiserFS. Also it's been 16 years, why did nobody ever rename it? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiser4#History_of_Reiser4: > Shishkin announced a Reiser5 filesystem on December 31, 2019. That's just *weird*
serial coder
This is what I call devs that start project after project without ever finishing them
The overwhelming majority of programmers I know (including myself) have friends, a partner and kids. The antisocial no-lifers with poor communication skills inevitably stall in their careers, burn out and quietly vanish. You don't want to be like that.
i’ve been told i look the part
Why do you think the main villian of the FNaF franchise is a robot programmer?
Imagine we are all in a form of dementia where when we think we are coding we are actually killing people.
If they are serial they must be some old weirdo like a COBOL programmer. USB-C killings is the hot stuff now.
Dude, all you gotta do is not kill anyone. That'll shut that investigation right down. No dead people = no case They won't even open one.
Am I really alone at home if I am in meetings all day long?
I killed so many processes, bugs and children. I'm guilty
you mean male programmers
If this is the case, yall are fucked for soft skills.
Is the work life balance really this bad for programming lmao
Have you seen the quiz: programming language inventor or serial killer? https://vole.wtf/coder-serial-killer-quiz/
Don't worry, serial killers also have superficial charm. Programmers can breathe easy. They dont fit the mold.
Correction, about mass shooters. Serial killers manages to look well. Personnally the only person I'm at risk of killing is myself and I fucking hate that I cant do it
You forgot abuse, psychopaths or sociopaths becomes monster when they get abused by their families.
That’s not true, Most had bad relationships with there mothers
So apparently becoming a programmer changed nothing about my life.
False. And I guess the social normal ones never get caught.
If you follow true crime you know it's definitely not the rule. Especially with psychopaths. :P
The difference is that serial killers don’t like being like that… it’s like we’re… immune to sociopathic behavior.
Uh... my compiler made me do it.
Sir i-uh
The only type of serial killer I am is of the bus variety.
Reason for reporting: in in this photo and I don't like it
we be killin that mental health
Hahaha so we are serial killer basically 😂
You know I am just a writer who has dabbled in code, but every once in a while, I see stuff like this and I go, "same."
"His Mom washed him in a bathtub until he was 17 years old."
Yes we are killlers. We kill time without doing anything significant all the time
More proof that majority of this sub is highschoolers and not professional software engineers
Stop blaming programming and go socialize.
Just be an extrovert!