I think the author basically decides that "productivity" is not defined but "effective" is. The problem with productivity is that most of us aren't directly producing a thing that is of independent and immediately clear worth. I would claim the same is true if "effectiveness" -- what effect is being achieved, and is it actually worthwhile on its own or is its worth contingent on a bunch of other work and conditions some of which you don't control or observe?
Neoengineers
21–24 of 24 posts
Re: Neoengineers
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Engineering is most certainly about being better or worse. A key aspect of being an engineer is that you can make conscious trade offs that include time, cost and feasability among others. It's not always a good choice the make the minimal thing that ticks of all the must requirements. In all cases there are unstated requirements that any engineer worth their salty will think and ask about. If you dont the that's how…
Writers make conscious trade offs between time, cost, feasibility. Are writers language engineers? Literally everybody makes trade offs, that is not a distinguishing aspect. I am confused how you got to “make the minimal thing that ticks of [sic] all of the must requirements”. I said engineering was about objective guarantees . Requirements are a derivative and means of that. Making things better, more efficient, che…
[dead]
Re: Neoengineers
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are mixing "engineering" with responsibility. You could literally take away "engineering" and put in any other word and it wouldn't mean much at all except just saying 'be responsible'. Yes having more knowledge and accomplishment (experience) in anything in life lets you develop more confidence. Ethicality is different from responsibility though, I think you conflated the two.
In some traditions, engineering is intertwined with responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_an_Engineer
Okay well which ones do you subscribe to? And I wonder what definition of engineer do you and OP subscribe to, because this conversation probably goes nowhere when everyone sees it as meaning separate things.
Here's one simple one we can probably agree on:
> An engineer is a professional who applies scientific and mathematical principles to design, build, and maintain machines, structures, systems, and software.
As a professional applying these principles to design, build and maintain systems, morals and ethics are not involved in the definition of a professional who does these things. If you want to involve that, use your adjectives and communication and writing skills to add the word ethical or responsible in front of the word engineer wherever you use it. Instead of making up new definitions to fit your egoic desires: i.e. say "Responsible engineers xysz" instead of "engineers xysz" and then trying to project onto everyone that they are wrong or don't understand what an engineer is if they don't automatically assume and engineer must be responsible to be called an engineer. (which imo is deceptive and self-serving in use of language)
Re: Neoengineers
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some traditions, engineering is intertwined with responsibility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_of_an_Engineer
Okay well which ones do you subscribe to? And I wonder what definition of engineer do you and OP subscribe to, because this conversation probably goes nowhere when everyone sees it as meaning separate things. Here's one simple one we can probably agree on: > An engineer is a professional who applies scientific and mathematical principles to design, build, and maintain machines, structures, systems, and software. As a…
In many engineering professions licenses and certifications require adherence to an ethical code, for instance the ISC2 certifications like the CISSP. So for one to be a professional in these fields one must actually act ethically.