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

321–330 of 408 posts

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

#321

Post by mcguire »

mindslight wrote: post #297
mcguire wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That link is just the North Carolina license board's position statement. They're the defendants in this case, for attempting to claim such overbroad authority. Nutt's position is that their claim conflicts with his first amendment right to free speech, specifically his right to state his opinion on technical matters. I agree with Nutt. NC is effectively attempting to criminalize my ability to represent myself in cour…

I very much doubt the federal courts are going to agree that free speech applies to expert testimony.

And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.

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

#322

Post by lupire »

antognini wrote: post #219
Swenrekcah wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Abolish, not legalize. "Jaywalking" is a made up crime invented by car companies to project jaydrivers.

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

#323

Post by mindslight »

mcguire wrote: post #321
mindslight wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link is just the North Carolina license board's position statement. They're the defendants in this case, for attempting to claim such overbroad authority. Nutt's position is that their claim conflicts with his first amendment right to free speech, specifically his right to state his opinion on technical matters. I agree with Nutt. NC is effectively attempting to criminalize my ability to represent myself in cour…

I very much doubt the federal courts are going to agree that free speech applies to expert testimony. And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.

The question of whether something counts as expert testimony - judgement calls that can be relied on as impartial facts - is up to the court itself. That is not in dispute here.

"The yellow light timing is below table X of the traffic code, and therefore my ticket for running the red light is invalid because I was not given the chance to stop in time."

That's an argument that an individual can straightforwardly make and a judge can choose to accept or not by following the same reasoning. It involves engineering analysis, yet it is low stakes enough to make hiring a Professional Engineer prohibitive.

Under the North Carolina board's position, a person who makes this argument is committing a crime. That effectively creates a privileged class of people whose decisions (or oversights) cannot be questioned even when they're blatantly wrong - in this example, the traffic engineers responsible for the intersection.

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

#324

Post by lupire »

jbluepolarbear wrote: post #304
brudgers wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lic…

But who decides it needs a license? Other licensed individuals? I would do a better job sticking to requirements than a lot of licensed engineers. It’s cheaper and easier for me to do all the work, and then hire a firm to say it passes requirements than getting said license. It gives me the freedom to engineer in any field I’m interested. I have previously done mechanical, electrical, structural, and medical engineer…

Thats fine. The pount is that the work should be signed off by a licenssd engineer.

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

#325

Post by lupire »

mcguire wrote: post #321
mindslight wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That link is just the North Carolina license board's position statement. They're the defendants in this case, for attempting to claim such overbroad authority. Nutt's position is that their claim conflicts with his first amendment right to free speech, specifically his right to state his opinion on technical matters. I agree with Nutt. NC is effectively attempting to criminalize my ability to represent myself in cour…

I very much doubt the federal courts are going to agree that free speech applies to expert testimony. And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.

It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony.

Suppressing testimony by punishing people for speaking honestly (nor merely disregarding their testimony) undermines the very foundation of thr legal system.

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

#326

Post by ryukafalz »

geoduck14 wrote: post #307
Swenrekcah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet. Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?

Not GP but I live in Philly, a very dense walkable city. It is absolutely reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph on most of our streets. Especially in residential neighborhoods, but honestly ideally pretty much everywhere in Center City and a good distance away from there too.

EDIT: And in fact most of the residential streets here are 25 mph, and I think only that high because it's the minimum posted speed limit in the state of Pennsylvania. (I'd like to see that lowered personally, and more importantly some traffic calming that's actually effective.)

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

#327

Post by ddingus »

sonofhans wrote: post #179
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…

You know, that gas-pumping law comes up for vote every few years, and each time it’s re-approved. For the most part, people like it.

Personally, I love it and will vote to continue it every time.

Do not mind if it is a jobs program. People need the work. Rain sucks. Handling gas sucks.

I get to catch up on a text, queue a show up for driving and pretty much never mind a wait.

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

#328

Post by beerandt »

dada78641 wrote: post #303
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…

> Next interesting point. Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’? Regardless of whether it is, you can really tell the hypocrisy. Medicine is a vastly more protected profession than engineer. The article states about 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. That would be unthinkable for any form of medical work. And yet, there are vastly more people giv…

>Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?

For many (most?) states, this is a determination spelled out broadly by law, and left up to the licensing board itself to implement, interpret, administer, and enforce.

So the answer, in those states, is:

"Practicing engineering is whatever the state licensing board says it is."

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

#329

Post by drdaeman »

mcguire wrote: post #320
drdaeman wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 connection…

" 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 see that it is vouched for by 1000 other people. They see that a countering article that is also vouched for by 1000 people, but those people are all so-called "experts" and they've read HN and know that "experts" are biased and have perverse incentives and such. O…

> They see that it is vouched for by 1000 other people.

Oh, no, no, if I understood your idea - that's something I really want to avoid. This sort of query must explicitly be against the recommended/designed use. It cannot be a popular vote, it must be peer-to-peer. A web rather than a cesspool. A query must result in "no paths to any trusted sources found".

Just like in the real world - my opinions on, say, some processes in metallurgy (something I have no clue about) cannot depend on opinion of someone I don't have any connections with, even if they're renown expert in that field. I may trust them through some institutions, certification programs or something like that - say, they graduated from some university that I consider trustworthy. But if there are no connections at all I can't say anything about that person's credibility. Best I can do upon reading their opinion is that it's self-appraised.

This web must be designed in a way that people they don't know, people that aren't connected to one's node in the web through peers they know and trust, mustn't have any significant weight, no matter how many there are. One should be free to make their own arbitrary queries, but this online popular vote thing is already known to be a very flawed metric.

Not to mention it would require to solve that very hard one-true-identity problem. If all your connections are people you know, and their connections are people they know, identity becomes a non-issue. As long as the small world hypothesis is close enough to the reality, this should work. And it would be a non-issue even if someone invents a fake identity - it'll either a recognized legit alter ego (pseudonymous account, who still may express opinions people listen to), or a meaningless fake person that no one knows (that may vouch for whatever, the only connections is through its creator).

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

#330

Post by zzzeek »

geoduck14 wrote: post #307
Swenrekcah wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet. Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?

The default speed limit throughout all of Manhattan is 25 mph.
Post reply on HN