Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

ij.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 408 posts

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#151

Post by lozenge »

tablespoon wrote: post #121
Swenrekcah wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me.

> Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me. It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530 Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front…

I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#152

Post by nickthemagicman »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #33

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission ( https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ ). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards a…

This is great! Should really apply to laws as well.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#153

Post by staticman2 »

Closi wrote: post #19
morelisp wrote: post #2

It's not clear from the complaint if he's being threatened with legal action because he's voiced his opinion, or because he prepared testimony as an expert witness concerning engineering in a trial. Given that the case cites numerous times he gave his opinion in "public and quasi-judicial" fora without mentioning reprimand, it seems like it's the latter. That's doesn't sound like a first amendment violation. Truth is…

I don’t see why someone needs to be licensed to provide expert opinion (even in court). It’s just the job of the other side to discredit the expert witness. Engineering licences are really meant to protect unqualified people making bad designs which get made and produce safety/quality issues - their purpose isn’t to work out who should be able to say what. They are about making sure something physical gets built corr…

The obvious reason you might want him to have a license to speak in court is if he's blatently lying in court about engineering you can revoke the license after a legal proceeding and no longer have a paid liar as a tool for attorneys to hire to decieve the judge and jury.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#155

Post by bushbaba »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #33

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission ( https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ ). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards a…

CPUC exists to regulate electric companies. However it’s corrupt and is a pawn of the electric companies.

Realistically a law that requires a majority vote to continue the agency is better. That way if something in government cannot muster say 60% of the vote. It’s abolished.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#156

Post by mc32 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #33

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission ( https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ ). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards a…

That’s very good.

I would like to see the feds do similar with executive offices.

I’d also like to see these for charities

I’d also like to see it for non-profits.

Often their original intent or charter does not reflect their current state.

Often it’s inertia and people wanting to perpetuate these organizations that keep them going morphing them beyond their original intent.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#157

Post by yaitsyaboi »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #142
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #33

Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission ( https://www.sunset.texas.gov/ ). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards a…

What benefits is Texas seeing from the Sunset Commission? https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/ shows a lot of what appear to be wholly spurious licensing types: - barbering - cosmetology - dietitians - dyslexia therapy - behavior analysts - polygraph examiners (!) - auctioneers - etc. etc.

I don't see a lot of overlap here and don't understand how they're spurious.

Yeah the polygraph one seem anachronistic, but if people still use them I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#158

Post by erikerikson »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #135
erikerikson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly in advertising providing medical advice and what can be said is highly regulated. For good reason too. Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted may have caused some real harm. It would seem reasonable to remove a doctor's license to practice medicine for giving such advice. Of course broad scale communication is different than specific testimony in court, especially from a seasoned practitioner…

> Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted What are you even talking about? Edit: To clarify, I don't think 100% fatal medical advice is a good analogy for good-faith testimony relating to a "piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes." Maybe something more like "Hey I'm not a licensed doctor, but in my experience double-fisting twinkies leads to weight gain."

There was a certain political figure I didn't want to invoke who offhandedly suggested this might be a COVID solution.

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#159

Post by AbrahamParangi »

foolinaround wrote: post #143
breck wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if all laws should have such a thing.

I would suggest that for laws, it should be the other way around. The longer a law has been in place, more care needs to be taken in changing it. (not that it should not be changed )

Exponential backoff but for laws

Re: North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering

#160

Post by [deleted] »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #112
an_opabinia wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Much, if not all, of politics, on both sides, for ordinary people, is concerning who gets what welfare. For every Oregon FAA there are probably 100 offices in the military and government agricultural sector that provide a small number of good but sort of meaningless jobs. For every 1 soldier actually shooting bullets or 1 bonafide back-bending farmer there are 999 comfy desk…

People who want the "star trek future" don't seem to understand that, yes, work is valuable in its own right. It's better to work for your meal than have it handed to you. So, a primary concern of society is indeed keeping its people gainfully employed and we see outcomes that would not make sense were this not the case.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN