111–120 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it implies a couple of engineers could slip through arbitrary code to be executed under selective conditions. That's terrifying.
If that's the case, the execs are even more at fault for not having proper controls in place to prevent rogue employees from jeopardizing the entire company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
However plausible it may be, it is still not excusable. The company should have processes in place that can verify the claims it makes. Plausible deniability is really just a claim of neglect. Edit: I'm being rate-limited, so I'll respond to the points below right here: >What processes should be in place, exactly, to do what? How about driving a vehicle in the manner most of their customer's do and examining the emis…
What do you mean? Let's assume the individial he is talking about is a manager of a group of hundreds of engineers working in this area. This means this guy's direct manager most likely would not be in a position to inspect the work of people 2-3 levels down for any irregularities. What processes should be in place, exactly, to do what? Quarterly polygraph tests performed by all engineering managers to assure top man…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it implies a couple of engineers could slip through arbitrary code to be executed under selective conditions. That's terrifying.
The code might even have been outsourced. I'm not trying to disparage outsourced developers, I know what I might do if the user story was something like "Needs to pass emissions when attached to test system."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hyperbole much ? When a soldier is ordered to torture - its clearly wrong to do so. Its a question of human ethic. Is it the responsibility of the software engineer to know the exact level of NO_2 0.001 or 0002 that he should be coded into their product ? Also a software engineer doesn't exist in a vacuum. There is a whole testing regime. Why should the coder be solely responsible ?
Engineers aren't solely responsible, but... Did you software guys not take engineering ethics classes? You have a responsibility to society to consider health and safety of the public, even if it means losing your job.
Also, since we are CS and not Professional Engineers, we did not have any ethical ceremony like Order of the Engineer.
Some type of Professional Ethics course is part of the ACM model curriculum for computer science (https://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations), but I think how that's fulfilled varies widely across universities.
Nope, definitely systemic within the company. The engine is a system that must meet certain requirements. The standard way of meeting those requirements is to have a urea injection system. That's what the competitors in the US do; it's also what Subaru, for example, don't do, and they don't sell into the US market. In order to pull off this little 2-person hack that Horn alleges, those couple of software engineers wo…
And the "couple of engineers" was in reference to the head of engineering and another guy. It wasn't implicating rogue low-level engineers.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-is-the-real-cause-of-the...
This pass the buck attitude really pisses me off. You're the head of the company, department, whatever, it's your gawd damn responsibility if your subordinates do something wrong. If you hired bad people it's still your responsibility. If you hired people that hired people it's still your responsibility. I don't care if you knew or not. You set the tone, you set the impossible deadlines or requirements. You fostered…
My favorite manager ever told me when I took my first management job that "you can delegate work but not responsibility"
"This was a couple of software engineers who put this in for whatever reason," - I'm not buying it. What would be their motive compared say to VW's motive? VW has a heck of a lot more motive for falsifying emissions than do "a couple of software engineers." Even if you were to argue the engineers were somehow fearful for their jobs that's still VW's problem because they're the ones who created that work environment i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The (now resigned) CEO prided himself on being an engineer and in depth knowledge. I don't believe he didn't know how VW was able to market clean diesel engines in the US without having a clean diesel emission system for them. His big thing was to be the largest car maker and he needed to juice US sales to get there. He had to have spent a lot of time on US strategy. The shitty part is that he succeeded--they became…
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/content/en/the_gr... "Winterkorn’s professional career began in 1977 as a specialist assistant in the research division "Process Engineering" at Robert Bosch GmbH. From 1978 to 1981 he headed the refrigerant compressor development group "Substances and Processes" at Robert Bosch GmbH and Bosch-Siemens-Hausgeräte GmbH. In 1981 Winterkorn joined AUDI AG as assistant to the Mem…
Also, judging from an earlier article it appears it's common to refer to various higher-ups on the product teams as Engineers even though they are quite old and were clearly acting in a managerial or even executive capacity. When Horn says "software engineer" he's making a leap and it's the wrong leap.
Horn is making these statements after being pressed by members of Congress, he's not volunteering these misleading statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No way could it be just a couple of software engineers. The engine is a system, and its the engine that has to pass the emissions tests. So that means the whole engine development team had to be in on it, including their technical management. They in turn would not have done such a thing if they had not believed that senior management wanted it, and it is the responsibility of senior management to make it clear what…
When this CEO of a company with 600k employees says "it's some software engineers", I assume he might actually be honestly referring to what we would call engineering managers, perhaps with hundreds of indirect reports, 2-3 levels down from the CEO. I find this plausible... (Particularly since these hearings seem designed to score political points rather than to find out what actually happened.)