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

#271

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:46 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."

Defense: The patient was already ill. Can the opposition prove that the prescription of bleach, specifically, caused the harm, in the face of the patient's underlying disease? The risks of the treatment were adequately explained to the patient, as indicated by the patient's signature on this form. The patient voluntarily accepted those risks.

Bottom line: the patient is dead, and civil or criminal liability ain't going to bring 'em back.

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

#272

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

drdaeman wrote: post #265

teorema wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 honestly hope for a framework of credibility, where people vouch for others' competence on a subject. Not just for licensed/protected topics but for just about anything. You know, like those LinkedIn appraisals (yes, they suck but they're just reflection of the society). That ages old "web of trust" idea. Something without any "mandatory" trusted anchors and no censorship. One must be freely able to put any trust l…

How difficult would it be, do you think, to establish a web-of-trust for those advocating the dangers of vaccines? How large would that web of trust be, and how many people would fall prey to it?

Bad money drives out good. Bad speech drives out good, too.

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

#273

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

antiterra wrote: post #248

brudgers wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is the events that sparked the investigation were outside of the subject’s workplace/employment. Hence “retired.” The preponderance of precedent favors the board’s concerns and right to investigate. Being slightly familiar with North Carolina professional regulations, I suspect this holds true at the state level in particular. The legal argument is inconsistent. It claims that the regulations don’t a…

The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license must be suspect and is cheating the rules. You seem to have missed the legal argument in the Oregon case which had nothing to do with an industrial exemption.

"The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license and testified as an engineering expert witness must be suspect and is cheating the rules."

Nutt became required to get a license when he began practicing engineering outside the "industrial exception".

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

#274

Post by Swenrekcah » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

marcus_holmes wrote: post #268

Swenrekcah wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I find the handing over of personal responsibility for my safety to be alarming. If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross. If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's…

Regarding the angry looks with kids around, they aren’t able to judge the speed, distance or even direction (of sound) of an approaching car nearly as well as us before the age of 8 or 10.

So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)

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

#275

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:00 PM UTC

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…

Nutt provided expert testimony as an engineer. That is legally defined as "practicing engineering".

https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...

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

#276

Post by JuettnerDistrib » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:09 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #94

beebeepka wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it not create jobs? Not saying it's good nor bad.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window for why this is bad.

So is there also a kind of "reverse broken window" fallacy, e.g., for housing, where not tearing down an old... excuse me... "historic" building prevents the creation of bigger and better things?

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

#277

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

coupdejarnac wrote: post #252

HWR_14 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pretty much. If an engineer is in a bubble of software engineering, it's easy to forget there are other engineering professions where a lack of ethics or a poor understanding of engineering gets people killed or causes damage. For most of the people here on HN, getting a license doesn't really matter much- they fall under the umbrella exception, so they can call themselves engineers. The license indicates some floor…

Software gets people killed and causes huge amounts of damage, too. However, software developers are protected legally and socially from liability for their actions.

Hence the one-sided nature of the comments here.

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

#278

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:10 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #3

No opinion on whether this is a new development or not, but needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid. By far the majority of engineering work is stating the obvious. Even a novice with some calculus background could probably come to the right answer if they had access to the necessary data. Maybe they'd need a little help warming up. Engineers are just more reliable at getting to the obvious answe…

"...needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid..."

Not to "talk about engineering". To provide expert testimony as an engineer.

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

#279

Post by brudgers » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #254

brudgers wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is engineering other than expressing an opinion? Engineers are trained to have expert opinions. They are expected to consider all relevant factors. In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference. It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it pre…

Why is a license more important than skill and experience? So you’ll trust a person that’s failed the license multiple times, is barely able to do the job, and has a history of failing at their job because they have a license? Because those issues still happen with licensed professionals. A license doesn’t prove aptitude, it just proves you passed a test. I’ve met multiple structural engineers that relied heavily on…

The person without a license who is doing something that requires a license is not taking full responsibility for what they are doing.

They are doing something that is only to their own benefit in a context where other people’s lives are at stake.

Quite simply it is unprofessional. A person without a license can hire a licensed professional for oversight. That’s the responsible thing to do.

In the US, engineering licensure requires supervised experience, testing, and typically (but not always) formal education at the bachelor level.

One requirement of professional practice is not working beyond one’s competence irrespective of having a license and engineering boards take that seriously.

I guess that’s the thing, an unlicensed person doing unsupervised work requiring a license is some combination of incompetent, unqualified, or negligent.

To put it another way, licensure ensures that a person has a minimum amount of skill, training, and experience. And that they take responsibility.

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

#280

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:20 PM UTC

nomdep wrote: post #100

elteto wrote: post #84

The framing of the title is a bit disingenuous. He is not “talking” about engineering to a bunch of college students. He is providing expert opinion in a court case. This is a whole different deal and I think there is nuance here. Honestly, I don’t like the manipulation with the title and how they are framing the whole thing. Makes me cautious about emitting an opinion.

In the article it says he declared that he wasn’t a licensed engineer. At most, you could argue that his expert testimony is not valid, saying that it is illegal it is a whole different deal. It smells like corruption of the NC government to me.

§ 89C-23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms; penalties; Attorney General to be legal adviser. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...)