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

#281

Post by drdaeman » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:22 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #272

drdaeman wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> and how many people would fall prey to it?

How exactly? I could be wrong, but I believe it won't make things any worse. I see three scenarios:

First, let's say someone is an antivaxer, already subscribed to that belief. If they're reading some posting, the fact that some other antivaxer vouched for that post's author doesn't change much.

If someone had not made any opinion yet - they won't have any trust connections on that matter, so if they're reading an anti-vaccine posting, they won't have any impact. Their query to the web of trust would say "no idea, you don't have any trust anchors set on this matter, go figure out whom you trust first".

It is only if they have a friend they trust on the subject vaccines, and that friend happens to be an antivaxer, they may have a "your friend vouches for this" result. This is the only scenario I see, where someone could be swayed towards a certain opinion, and I'd be damned if this doesn't already happens without any technologies, completely organically. It's their peer group that sways them, so the technology in question here doesn't make it worse or better, it just accelerates the process.

Again, I could be wrong about either or all of those. I readily recognize all of this stems from my beliefs in humanity (in general) as something that can work out its way through any amount of dissenting opinions, finding out the truths. I mean, historically, society had worked this way. And a controversial belief that accelerating this is a good idea - I admit, I don't have a rational arguments for or against this part - it's just a belief. Guess it comes from hatred of seeing all those slow simmering almost-pertpetual memetic wars and being unhappy about their fallout, yet not believing any forcible silencing of opposing forces is a viable approach.

Oh, and just to clarify: it's extremely important that trust must not be ultimate (exceptions apply for closest peers, e.g. partners or parents), but limited to a subject. E.g. I may trust someone on subject X but at the same time know they're avid subscribers to what I think is a false belief on subject Y, so I explicitly distrust them on that matter.

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

#282

Post by handrous » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:23 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #208

handrous wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because then you need an acupuncture badge quality quality badge, and so on.

That implies that we currently need QA organizations who rate government licensure schemes on their accuracy and informativeness. How often have you checked for those? You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.

> You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.

I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.

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

#283

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

squeaky-clean wrote: post #118

dasudasu wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one…

Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement. So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice. > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license si…

§ 89C-25. Limitations on application of Chapter. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...)

"(4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." is, I think, the only one to apply.

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

#284

Post by beerandt » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:26 PM UTC

SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #44

clejack wrote: post #5

I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills. I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the g…

> The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering. I don't think that is the main question, the testify vs speak is secondary. He is not a "Licensed Engineer", but he IS an "Engineer" (Graduated Engineering school, and worked legally his whole life as an Engineer in the subset of "engineering" that doesn't requi…

It's usually the licensing board itself that gets to make all these determinations.

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

#285

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

akira2501 wrote: post #139

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.

> He is providing expert opinion in a court case Aren't courts capable of making that decision themselves? Why should the state be allowed to interfere with sworn testimony?

The court did, and the Board accepts that. (See the link from the details of the case.) The board is pointing out that it is a Class 2 misdemeanor to practice engineering without a license (and outside the "industrial exemption").

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

#286

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

gpvos wrote: post #191

travisjungroth wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to their website, there are 15.5 FT employees. I don't consider healthy adults getting paid to do meaningless work a benefit to society.

I understand that 95% of American defense is a jobs program. Let's fry the bigger fish first.

To be fair, you can actually use that for some purpose if you really wanted.

I don’t think that is the case for a redundant board.

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

#287

Post by mcguire » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:30 PM UTC

amcoastal wrote: post #7

clejack wrote: post #5

I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills. I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the g…

They could've not considered his testimony, but instead they called it illegal under threat of being charged for a crime for giving his opinion.

The court considered his testimony. The Board of Examiners is charging him with practicing engineering without a license.

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

#288

Post by s1artibartfast » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:31 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #260

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…

Every time something like this comes up, I think the same thing: "Register as a professional engineer, jerk." If you've done actual engineering work for 20+ years, getting a PE is neither that hard nor that expensive and confers quite a bit of legal protection as well. If your cause-du-jour isn't worth taking the time to go get a PE, perhaps you don't believe in it very much. As for the vast hordes of HN who think th…

Yes, Licensing boards should get to decide who carries a license, but the customer should decide if they want a licensed engineer.

Customers/employers usually seek professional licensure for as a lazy stopgap against outright fraud for work with poor oversight and high liability. This is why PE's are predominately required for government and civil infrastructure.

For example, It takes a PE to certify a handrail on a municipal bus, while a company could design and sell a neurosurgical robot without a single PE.

In this specific case, if a court and jury don't find a PE license to confer meaningful credibility over someone without, then that seems to be a problem for the licensing board, not the person providing testimony, or the client who hired them.

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

#289

Post by beerandt » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:32 PM UTC

ivan_gammel wrote: post #16

yokaze wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051... It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case. Quite a bit of framing

Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.

The judge can decide who gets to testify in his own court, but that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license.

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

#290

Post by hellbannedguy » Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 10:33 PM UTC

briffle wrote: post #249

irrational wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have had other customers in Oregon very, very loud and angry about me getting out and running the pump myself. They immediately dismiss my statement that it’s perfectly legal for us to dispense diesel, just not gasoline, until an employee usually tells them it’s legal and they appreciate it.

I went down the Rogue River a few summers.

While driving home, I remember thinking that Gas Station Attendant was looking at me funny.

It wasen't until a few years later I heard about the law.

(There's a stretch of highway 101 around Shasta that is a Speed Trap. The cops pull over four vechicles at a time and give everyone tickets. They supposedly use a plane, but I never saw one. They got busted a few years ago, but I heard they are doing it again.)