201–210 of 216 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even in the US computer engineering degrees require licensing and are different than “software engineering”, which is actually a specialty within computer science.
Except everyone calls themselves "engineer" after a 6 weeks bootcamp, is is rediculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Smart people want money and prestige." I'd question your definition of the word smart in this context.
What do you think all those new CS professors want after earning their PhD? What about the PhDs that join the big-tech research labs? Why do you think they joined big tech?
Sure the prestige and money might follow, but for some it is more of a pleasant side effect than the ultimate goal. As an anecdote, I had a math university who was riding the public transport daily beside me, he was so simple and approachable that looking at him and his lifestyle you will never think he makes money or teaching at uni, yet his brain was sharp and his passion to mathematics was clear once he starts teaching. He is too "smart" to occupy his mind with status and vanities of life beyond his basic needs.
Note that I'm not dismissing that many do those things for status and money but I tend to believe that a lot of the leaders in those areas do it because they can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Investment banking has no problem attracting smart people. Smart people know that you gain nothing by sacrificing yourself for society. Even if you cared enough to say no, all that would happen is that Facebook would pay somebody else to work for them.
> Even if you cared enough to say no, all that would happen is that Facebook would pay somebody else to work for them. Serious question: Do you vote? Because this argument seems like people who say “my vote doesn’t matter, it’s just one vote out of millions.” It’s true that at the individual level, one vote basically never makes the difference, but elections are won and lost. In the same way, if one person says no, m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except everyone calls themselves "engineer" after a 6 weeks bootcamp, is is rediculous.
Yes, I thought your comment was about university regulations. Does Portugal make it illegal to list “software engineer” on your business card? (or does Portugal have a software engineering licensing system?)
If you happen to be someone like our former prime minister, or being lucky that no one bothers to sue because of how long everything takes.
However, depending on the company, it might be a matter to lose the job.
Where it definitely matters is signing legal binding contracts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Good thread here that provides a counter-balance. https://twitter.com/nireyal/status/1443882540868063241?s=21 By the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Eyal : > In 2014 Eyal published his first book, Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, which became a Wall Street Journal best seller.[12][13] The title reflects Eyal's idea of the "hooked model", which ai…
Is there something specific about Eyals take that you disagree with?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm not an engineer but I can draw up a bridge right now. Would it stand or collapse? Who knows. I think it looks nice though so I post it online. Then an actual engineer sees my drawing and makes an actual bridge out of it. Right, it's not the publishing but the use which is proscribed - same applies for engineering. But that would apply regardless of whether the software you're using is open-source or not, and reg…
> it's not the publishing but the use which is proscribed - same applies for engineering Exactly. I think there should be an exception for free and open source software though. We have lots of free software designed to be used by people. I don't think these programmers should be held liable. Many of them are amateurs and volunteers. The chilling effect would simply be too great. I'm reminded of Greg Kroah-Hartman's t…
Do kernel contributions getting paid by the Linux foundation count? What if the offending company is donating to the Linux foundation?
>I think there should be an exception for free and open source software though. We have lots of free software designed to be used by people... The chilling effect would simply be too great.
I understand distinguishing between publishing and use. But we're talking about use here. The person responsible for the use of the bad program is usually not the contributor. So there's no chilling effect here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never seen a stat or survey that suggests that.
That's been my general observation. I see the following hypocrisy: Murderers and violent crimes should require rehabilitation, better lives in the prison and discussion here tends to be more around pro-forgiveness ideology; whilst I also see liberals suggesting that politicians and corporate leaders should be punished by prison terms. Apart from my own observation, non-punishment of non-violent crimes is a cornerston…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People thought the Beatles' music was making women mentally ill. It's the same record on repeat.
You aren't even engaging with the ideas in this thread. Do you think everything is hunky dory with the kids today?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person writes a book about hijacking human psychology for more clicks and then goes on to state how it’s our responsibility to control our use. What does he want us to do, re-wire our brains on demand?
> What does he want us to do, re-wire our brains on demand? He wants us to get hooked on his deliberately addictive products, but blame ourselves for it instead of him.
But how are the parents going to know how Instagram affects their kids.
I know from experience that it's not that easy also for highly educated and well meaning parents to know that much about how their kids feel and precisely what causes those feelings (Instagram or something else?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you define "full consequences"?
Whatever would have happened had their PR department not intervened.
Just as we have lawyers in court, why shouldn't facebook get to say their side? Artificially limiting their ability to justify their actions doesn't seem reasonable.