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

381–390 of 408 posts

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

#381

Post by username90 »

vharuck wrote: post #379
Buttons840 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last example is backwards. In this case the guy without an engineering license is demonstrating what is wrong. So the example should be: A bridge collapses and people die. In the resulting lawsuit a licensed engineer says, with many pages of reports, that everything was done correctly and the collapse was "an act of god". But an amateur who only knows a little about civil engineering points out one single thing…

The prosecution should take the amateur's opinion to a certified expert to (1) meet the legal requirements for an expert witness, and (2) verify the amateur is correct. Trial lawyers do this kind of thing all the time with experts. Even if the lawyer understands and can explain the problem, in the US at least, he cannot himself give testimony. He needs to present it through a witness.

What if the licensing board is corrupt? It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that they might protect their own in some cases, similar to police testimonies.

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

#382

Post by username90 »

morelisp wrote: post #375
lupire wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony. This is obviously wrong. Lying is broadly protected by free speech but firmly illegal , not just inadmissible, in court testimony. Courts also have the ability to compel testimony under criminal penalty, while free speech includes the right to say nothing or dissemble. Evidentiary standards place further requirements even on t…

He didn't lie though, he said in his testimony that he wasn't a licenced engineer.

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

#383

Post by CrazyPyroLinux »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #204
erikerikson wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a certain political figure I didn't want to invoke who offhandedly suggested this might be a COVID solution.

I edited my previous to be more on-topic, but oh geez, this is a whole different thing and I'll take the bait. Are you referring to Donald Trump? (There, invoked.) He's a moron and there's plenty to criticize him on. Which is why it's bizarre to see this particular false[0][1] narrative thrown around so much even to this day. If you watch (TDS trigger warning; transcripts in [0][1]) what he actually said[2] and the i…

Many downvotes, but no cited refutations; TDS is strong as ever.

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

#384

Post by morelisp »

username90 wrote: post #382
morelisp wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony. This is obviously wrong. Lying is broadly protected by free speech but firmly illegal , not just inadmissible, in court testimony. Courts also have the ability to compel testimony under criminal penalty, while free speech includes the right to say nothing or dissemble. Evidentiary standards place further requirements even on t…

He didn't lie though, he said in his testimony that he wasn't a licenced engineer.

And that's why he's been accused of practicing engineering without a license and not perjury, and why this is a reply to a specific statement about the first amendment in courtrooms and not a top-level comment about This One Oppressed Guy.

Even if he's 100% correct, that doesn't mean he has a first amendment right to testify!

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

#385

Post by morelisp »

username90 wrote: post #381
vharuck wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prosecution should take the amateur's opinion to a certified expert to (1) meet the legal requirements for an expert witness, and (2) verify the amateur is correct. Trial lawyers do this kind of thing all the time with experts. Even if the lawyer understands and can explain the problem, in the US at least, he cannot himself give testimony. He needs to present it through a witness.

What if the licensing board is corrupt? It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that they might protect their own in some cases, similar to police testimonies.

The corruption of the licensing board - which is not argued at all in this case, it's just whole-cloth speculation on your part - is not relevant to whether or not Nutt has the first amendment right to testify or the board the right to sanction him if he does.

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

#386

Post by vharuck »

username90 wrote: post #381
vharuck wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The prosecution should take the amateur's opinion to a certified expert to (1) meet the legal requirements for an expert witness, and (2) verify the amateur is correct. Trial lawyers do this kind of thing all the time with experts. Even if the lawyer understands and can explain the problem, in the US at least, he cannot himself give testimony. He needs to present it through a witness.

What if the licensing board is corrupt? It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that they might protect their own in some cases, similar to police testimonies.

It is definitely possible, and even has a clear financial and reputational incentive. But a lawyer only needs one expert witness and can pay that expert. And then that expert can use his testimony as validation of his skill or a new concept. So the expert witness would also have financial and reputational incentives to defect from the licensing board's dogma. Many people have heard of doctors and psychologists using roles as expert witness to push their theories.

That leaves the risk of a board ousting (or implicitly promising to oust) people based their expert testimony in court. Which would fall back onto the board's rules about revoking licenses. Lawmakers would likely get involved if any funny business happened; revoking isn't an obscure bylaw, but one of the two major purposes of the board (giving licenses being the other). I'll admit this hypothetical gets too complicated and delves too deeply into politics for me to guess likely.

Do you know of any historic examples besides police unions? I'll admit they match your worry, but the police benefit from massive public support that borders on mythology. So it's hard for politicians to do much about those problems.

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

#387

Post by ddingus »

ineedasername wrote: post #380
ddingus wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shows are aural, visual, etc.. when driving, I listen, though the content may contain video. Love listening to all sorts of stuff in the car. I may abuse the general term "show", and am happy to own that as well as can't be arsed to improve. To me, it is all just a show.

Ah, that makes sense, I've done that once or twice, but now I listen to audiobooks. Pretty much constantly actually, even at work. Especially at work: helps me concentrate without getting distracted. Unless something requires my absolutely full attention.

I will listen to an audiobook from time to time myself. A good reader makes for a nice experience! Thinking back, I have never referred to those as a show.

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

#388

Post by mint2 »

jimmaswell wrote: post #169
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…

This is great. I've had this idea myself but for major legislation in general. A checkup on any new federal law first 2 years later, then 4, then every 8, or maybe a provision to allow a longer time after enough successive affirmations. Congress could live with their easy jobs getting a bit harder.

The affordable care act would have been killed under that and replaced with nothing.

While in principle checking in on laws seems nice, a mandatory review deadline or it goes away would not be a viable solution in our current political climate.

But even in a more ideal climate, it seems that Congress would be tied up with the reviews and have no time to actually address new or contemporary issues.

Perhaps if it was structured so that a small percentage of laws were randomly selected and some check was enacted so that a minority couldn’t easily kill the law.

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

#389

Post by irrational »

ineedasername wrote: post #343
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.

It may be cheaper than elsewhere because of the close proximity to Washington's large refining capacity, from which Oregon gets most of it's supply. It's the same with certain areas on the east coast.

That doesn’t explain why Oregon is cheaper than Washington.

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

#390

Post by tablespoon »

Swenrekcah wrote: post #183
tablespoon wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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.

It's not a perverse value system, it's acknowledging reality. Cars aren't going away anytime soon, because they provide real benefits. In a world with cars, pedestrians can't act like they did when cars didn't exist, laws or no.

No diver (with some homicidal exceptions) wants to hit a pedestrian, just like no pedestrian (with some suicidal exceptions) wants to get hit by a car. To minimize those kinds of events, both groups need to act in certain ways (with added motivation provided by penalties); it's objectively inferior to try to concentrate responsibly only on one group or the other.

> 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.

Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on a green light (in my city, there'd be a "don't walk" light in that case).

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

Maybe in a dense city or a residential neighborhood (where I live streets with unposted limits are 25mph, which covers almost all residential streets), but it's a fact that other areas were built with arterial roads that need traffic to flow much faster.

Post reply on HN