North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by HWR_14 » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

teorema wrote: post #74

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…

I'm probably in the minority with this, but I think all licensing laws should be abolished. Even with cases like the one you describe, other mechanisms could be used to handle the problem and those individuals likely at are risk for doing things on their own anyway. I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit. The past year…

> I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.

If you eliminate the license requirement, what law would the criminal lawsuit be based on? And how would that law be written so it did not apply to a surgeon working on my heart? At what point would it apply to the surgeon?

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

#182

Post by HWR_14 » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:30 PM UTC

mkl95 wrote: post #12

Useless bureaucracy hinders innovation and progress. I live in Spain where engineering is very regulated. This results in some engineers spending 6+ years in university to gain the same status as their international peers who studied for 3 or 4 years. There's no point in enforcing this other than collecting fees to pay the salaries of people who don't really do anything.

Engineering licenses aren't about innovation or progress. They're about making sure that the same lessons aren't constantly relearned at great cost to customers and society.

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

#183

Post by Swenrekcah » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

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…

> e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver

I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.

The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.

Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.

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

#184

Post by Agentlien » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

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…

How is it required? In Sweden jaywalking as a crime does not exist and vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the street.

The problems you describe seem absent from my experience living all my life in Sweden's second largest city with plenty of pedestrians and motor vehicles crossing the same streets.

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

#185

Post by kabdib » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:34 PM UTC

bob1029 wrote: post #38

umvi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people want software engineering to be like other engineering disciplines where a PE license and/or union membership is mandatory to practice the trade.

I think you find most of those people do not have any intentions of bringing meaningful value to the engineering disciplines. It's just a business opportunity to them.

In the 1980s there was a proposal in the California legislature to license software engineers. They basically took an EE-related test (developed by the IEEE, little surprise) and stirred some software in there. I don't remember what software methodology flavor-of-the-month they rubberstamped, but I assure you that it was forgettable.

It was a bare-faced, rent-seeking money grab from some entrenched licensing board. I mean, I've used Ohm's Law in my software career, and I've made smoke come out of things on a professional basis. But it's hardly necessary for a security engineer to know about impedance matching.

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

#186

Post by cloverich » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:40 PM UTC

xf1cf wrote: post #114

Swenrekcah wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ignoring the ford conspiracies how exactly should jaywalking be treated then? It's both a danger to the drivers and the people. We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died. Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street…

Alternatively we could amend jaywalking to only be an offense if the act directly impedes drivers. That is, always legal to cross when safe. It more reflects the spirit of the law, eliminates bad (cop) behavior, and still allows fining bad pedestrian behavior. It’s how cars are regulated after all — you can turn through a cross walk with it’s walk sign on as long as there’s no pedestrians. So maybe right if way yielding lawns would work equally well for pedestrians and cars.

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

#187

Post by systemvoltage » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

irrational wrote: post #167

systemvoltage wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oregon’s gas pumping laws has some hilarious justifications. > “The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility” More here: https://medium.com/policy-northwest/the-insanity-of-oregons-... Safety is important but wet pavements are also a hazard when you leave your house or literall…

I live in Oregon, but grew up outside the state so fortunately I do know how to pump my own gas. One thing that has fascinated me is that our gas is no more expensive, and often cheaper, than surrounding states despite providing many jobs. One benefit of this system was shown recently when no truck beds or plastic bags were filled with gasoline.

If you want a jobs program, do something for the crumbling infrastructure in Oregon. Actually provide value to the society. Pumping gas is a giant waste of tax dollars and it is not preparing the populace for better jobs - it is the equivalent of flipping burgers.

It is the worst possible way to create a 'jobs program'.

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

#188

Post by dexterdog » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

malwarebytess wrote: post #55

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US was actually founded with the idea that this should be done to the entire constitution every couple of decades.

After all, why shouldn't each generation choose how it is to govern itself? Sins of the Fathers and so on...

Because each generation doesn't just govern itself. Also, how old should that generation be before they can decide which fences to take down without understanding whey they were put up in the first place?

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

#189

Post by thaumasiotes » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:46 PM UTC

yaitsyaboi wrote: post #157

thaumasiotes wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.

What do you imagine you're getting from hypothetical oversight? It is not theoretically possible to be more snake-oily than the field at large.

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

#190

Post by logicalmonster » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:49 PM UTC

hervature wrote: post #133

> But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes. Is anyone more disturbed by the fact that a family member can serve as an impartial expert witness?

I don't think expert witnesses are supposed to be necessarily impartial and can't personally favor one side or the other winning a case. It's part of the legal process that attorneys go out and hunt for the best possible advocate for their side. Additionally, expert witnesses are often paid a fee for their time and effort involved in preparing for and appearing to testify on a case. If we want to talk about bias, it feels like accepting money from one side should be just as damning as having a familial connection.

To me, it feels like any potential bias should be disclosed in legal filings and argued by the other side of the case during the legal dispute, and the judge/jury should weigh this in whatever decision-making process they employ.

In closing, I'd say this. Preparing for a serious trial might cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Do you really want to live in a world where you can't offer to help a family member or friend who asks for your help in a subject matter you know about?