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

211–220 of 408 posts

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

#211

Post by bastawhiz »

Aerroon wrote: post #199
bastawhiz wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acupuncture is snake oil, but I would very much prefer knowing that my acupuncturist has been checked out by someone qualified to check their skills. Just because it's snake oil doesn't mean that there are not expectations around its safety and application.

Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government do that?

Because a private individual or organization has no incentive to create a certification that ensures my safety. Their incentive is profit. The whole point of a government is to have a group unmotivated by profit, whose interests are its citizens.

You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.

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

#212

Post by FigmentEngine »

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…

love it!

is there a Sunset Commission for the Sunset Commission? :-)

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

#213

Post by _Nat_ »

Aerroon wrote: post #199
bastawhiz wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Acupuncture is snake oil, but I would very much prefer knowing that my acupuncturist has been checked out by someone qualified to check their skills. Just because it's snake oil doesn't mean that there are not expectations around its safety and application.

Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government do that?

> Why should the government do that?

Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead.

For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge.

But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions.

Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.

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

#214

Post by eesmith »

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…

How can this be relevant when Texas has exactly the same issue about the term 'engineer'?

More specifically, 20 years ago I remember learning Texas had some of the strictest laws on using the term "engineer". You could not call yourself a "software engineer" in Texas if you have were been licensed by the state. https://www.chron.com/news/article/Law-to-decide-if-programm...

Now, my knowledge is 20 years of date, and Texas law appears to now allow "engineer" in a business card of a software engineer[1], but my point is that the Texas Board of Professional Engineers would be the one to determine things like this, and I see no way that that board (a "self-directed semi-independent agency of the State of Texas") would be discontinued under the Sunset Commission.

Therefore, I don't see how that mechanism could be use to cut down on this specific type of abuse.

[1] The current laws are at https://engineers.texas.gov/downloads/enf_pub.pdf .

> Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:(1) “engineer”;(2) “professional engineer”;(3) “licensed engineer”;(4) “registered engineer”;(5) “registered professional engineer”;(6) “licensed professional engineer”; or (7) “engineered.” ...

> (f) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not: (1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or (2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.

It looks like (f) was added 20 years ago, and it allows someone to say they are a software engineer on a business card. Exception (f) does not allow a non-licensed engineer to say they are an engineer when an expert witness in a court case.

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

#215

Post by trentnix »

bastawhiz wrote: post #196
thaumasiotes wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Acupuncture is snake oil, but I would very much prefer knowing that my acupuncturist has been checked out by someone qualified to check their skills. Just because it's snake oil doesn't mean that there are not expectations around its safety and application.

> checked out by someone qualified to check their skills

Well sure, we'd all like that. But those of us who have experience dealing with government regulatory bodies (even justifiable ones like building inspectors, fire inspectors, etc.) are skeptical for good reason. The competence of your licensing overlords will vary greatly.

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

#216

Post by zero_iq »

godelski wrote: post #195
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.

Ironically the US has the oldest constitution of any sovereign state[0]. Beats Norway (the second oldest) by 26 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions

Depends what you're counting as a constitution. San Marino has the US beat for oldest written and still active constitutional documents by 190 years.

The UK has an uncodified constitution that predates the US by over 500 years, originally founded on the Magna Carta, signed in 1215.

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

#217

Post by staticman2 »

gopiandcode wrote: post #173
staticman2 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the expert witness were lying, wouldn't that be perjury, and doesn't that come with its own legal repercussions?

Sure, in theory lying can have legal consequences, but only if you can prove the person is intentionally lying. To take away the license you'd only have to prove they are stating things no qualified engineer would say.

Suppose, for example, an engineer testified that bricks should never be used in housing because in his professional opinion bricks cause cancer. His source is a blog post as reliable as a supermarket tabloid.

How do you prove he's intentionally lying, rather than just insane or confused or stupid?

By making it a license issue instead, you at least move the goal as to whether his statements meet some minimum standard of professional expectations or care.

This is all just hypothetical, in practice I don't know to what extent these license authorities are supervising engineers. But ideally I'd like an engineer to at least have some pressure to remain honest when they testify in court.

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

#218

Post by antognini »

hliyan wrote: post #41
the_lonely_road wrote: post #20

What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a short articles that is each worth its own discussion! Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeles…

This is why the letter of the law is so important, paradoxically. It is never good to have unreasonable/archaic laws in the book and have law enforcement look the other way. Since almost everyone ends up breaking them, it allows law enforcement to basically charge any selected person. Such laws should be struck off the book. I believe in Latin, this is called Lex malla, lex nulla - roughly translates to "No law is be…

"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law."

-- Óscar Benavides

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

#219

Post by antognini »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #63
dotancohen wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without > issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking. I'll take the opportunity to branch OT. This selective enforcement has always been such a problem, has there ever been any attempt - anywhere - to address it? Such that if a citizen can demonstrate selective enforcement he can also be absolved of the same crimes that the rest of the pop…

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

There is a bill (AB 1238) in the California Legislature that will legalize jaywalking: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.

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

#220

Post by [deleted] »

mindslight wrote: post #192
brudgers wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person subject to the complaint prepared stormwater calculations and submitted it as evidence in a legal proceeding. The letter that person received from the board is linked in the article. It states the person is charged and gives them the opportunity for a written response. Civil engineering typically requires a PE.

Engineering generally refers to design and building , of which analysis is a single part. So it's not immediately apparent that Nutt was practicing engineering at all. It's more accurate to say that the kind of projects civil engineers work on generally end up requiring a PE, as a condition of actually being built. Small time civil engineering in your own backyard does not require a PE - eg improving drainage, settin…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN