Looks like the course got a huge rewrite this year, especially the addition of Ghidra. Very interesting to see that, usually I just recommend RPISEC's course[0] but the Ghidra inclusion is huge. Great stuff.
The Lecturer is brutal. the "Umm" rate in his talks is inexcusable for a professional public speaker, which is what I classify any "teacher" as.
Makes the lectures impossible for me to listen to.
Umm, I don't think so and those aren't mutually exclusive. Sit in a silent class trying to listen to someone who has no tonal changes in their voice for 1 to 3 straight hours multiple times a week and your interest will die hard and fast.
Can confirm. The reason I'm a self-taught programmer today is that my 101 professor combined a near-perfect monotone with the ability to repeat himself, word for word, if you asked for clarification.
I've had this debate with my academic advisor at CMU.
I'd take a trained speaker–even an actor who doesn't actually know the material he/she's describing–as a primary lecturer any day, as long as I get access to someone who knows what they're talking about in a recitation.
This is a great question. It would be interesting to run an A/B test on an online course. The treatment gets an actor reading pre-prepared notes, and the control gets a lecturer who actually knows the material.
An A/B test might be interesting, but we have scores from any conference that takes feedback seriously. Commercial conferences will sometimes be ranking speakers on individual tracks and you'll get a pep talk about expectations before and a review after.
I was thrown into one of those conferences with a colleague once and it was pretty intense. I sat in on sessions and had access to the scores and feedback later and people would have very specific things they didn't like about the speaking. Having listened you can sort of agree with the attendee, but access to formal training, or a good mentor can be tough. Former employer offered an hour with a speaking coach at one point and that made a big impact on my issues, but people don't give similar feedback in the local dev speaking circuits.
Have they ever considered running a few coaching sessions for staff? I suspect the answer is no because they don't believe they have a problem, but that's my bias from university in UK.
I am not a good speaker, but one time my employer offered an hour long session with a coach before a conference. I presented my material (something they strongly emphasised) and he was able to give me advice on getting rid of the "umms" and sound a bit more engaging. It made a big difference to what people have to listen to and gave me a confidence boost.
Looks like strictly static analysis? I am personally very interested in using dynamic analysis to guide static analysis efforts. When I do run into malware I need to know its harmful effects and persistence mechanisms (!) immediately so I can do IR. That's a different purpose than research or countermeasure development.
[0] https://github.com/RPISEC/Malware