4 ms·

I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums I agree this is common especially in such settings, yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the nece

by nkurz 9y ago

I see this sentiment a lot, especially on tech forums I agree this is common especially in such settings, yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification. Assuming I'm not confusing your username with another, I usually agree with your comments here on HN, but not this one. Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here? For example, are you involved in the legislative process? Do you hold some certifications that you feel are societally beneficial? Have you personally been hurt by the lack of regulation? those regulations are usually in place as a result of uncertified people taking advantage of the poor While I'm sure this is often the case, I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors? Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry. How do you distinguish legitimate public safety issues from protectionism by entrenched businesses? while we're surrounded by mountains of evidence exactly to the contrary Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements? Do you think the US benefit from greater certification for professionals? I was surprised to learn that Switzerland requires apprenticeship and training for almost all jobs, including retail cashiers. This strikes me as overkill, but apparently has the benefit of keeping very low unemployment rates: https://www.e-tas.ch/swiss-apprentices-get-new-futures https://www.e-tas.ch/swiss-apprentices-get-new-futures.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
> yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification ? I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here; I would be in favor of some kinds of certification process for software developers, for what it's worth, especially given the vast amounts of personal information that many developers have access to, even if they don't have any background in adequately keeping that data secure. > Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here? My personal views have become less ideological and more data-driven as I've gotten older. I've shifted from approximately Republican, in the 90s, to more democratic, to more libertarian during the first Ron Paul cycle, to more ... honestly, I'm not sure what bucket it would be now. Mostly socially liberal, a little bit fiscally conservative, but most of all, data-driven. I'll accept whatever point of view that has the most evidence for promoting egalitarianism and humanism. Tech forums today appear to be broadly developing a strong libertarian politic. Or, maybe a vocal minority. dang is more circumspect on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584 The most compelling stuff I've seen in recent years has suggested that regulation is a net positive on society, and that more regulated societies tend to be wealthier, healthier, and happier. This is not to say that all regulations are beneficial, of course. > I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors? Oh, sure. That's a thing that happens, and when it does, it should be fought against. It cannot, however, be used as a stick against all forms of regulation. > Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry. The causes behind various forms of regulation can be interesting. The EPA, for instance, exists in spite of the rather large amount of lobbying and marketing against it from businesses which it regulates. The FCC was up until recently in a similar position; the current administration has managed to effectively neuter it, for the time being. Lots of new laws come from industry lobbying. Lots of other laws come from legislators doing what they think is right, even if their morals don't agree with someone else's, or they're not particularly knowledgeable on the subject they're legislating. But, lots of other laws also come from science, or panels of experts providing consultation on a subject. > Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements? I didn't hit on this point in particular, but I did provide a small handful of links in another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15731261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15731261 My "regulation" tag in pinboard is still a bit light though, so I don't have an immediate reply for you and it's late and I don't want to start nerding on statistics right now. :-)
- nkurz 9y ago
  I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here No, I was just wondering whether there was a particular reason that you'd take what appears to be the minority position within tech circles. I'm mostly in the possibly-more-common "the US is over-regulated" camp, tend to be moving farther in that direction, and was wondering what perspective I might be missing. I'm strongly for greater governmental regulation regarding environmental issues (and in general, biased toward regulations that protect the commons from individuals) but generally against regulations that mandate government involvement in what would otherwise be person-to-person interactions. In both cases, though, I worry that new laws are often created for some hidden private agenda rather than for the stated public good, even if the benefit to the public might be real. Usually, I'd prefer that we improve enforcement of our existing rules rather than adding more. Thanks for your excellent answer, and I'll read the links you provided tomorrow.

by nkurz 9y ago

thaumaturgy 9y ago

> yet you are here on a tech forum arguing for the necessity of professional certification ? I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here; I would be in favor of some kinds of certification process for software developers, for what it's worth, especially given the vast amounts of personal information that many developers have access to, even if they don't have any background in adequately keeping that data secure. > Do you think there are differences in your background that might explain why you hold the less common view here? My personal views have become less ideological and more data-driven as I've gotten older. I've shifted from approximately Republican, in the 90s, to more democratic, to more libertarian during the first Ron Paul cycle, to more ... honestly, I'm not sure what bucket it would be now. Mostly socially liberal, a little bit fiscally conservative, but most of all, data-driven. I'll accept whatever point of view that has the most evidence for promoting egalitarianism and humanism. Tech forums today appear to be broadly developing a strong libertarian politic. Or, maybe a vocal minority. dang is more circumspect on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15701584 The most compelling stuff I've seen in recent years has suggested that regulation is a net positive on society, and that more regulated societies tend to be wealthier, healthier, and happier. This is not to say that all regulations are beneficial, of course. > I assume you'd agree that there can be an incentive for established players to want to lock in their positions by excluding competitors? Oh, sure. That's a thing that happens, and when it does, it should be fought against. It cannot, however, be used as a stick against all forms of regulation. > Since few consumers care enough about any particular issue to get legislation passed, the impetus for new laws often comes from industry. The causes behind various forms of regulation can be interesting. The EPA, for instance, exists in spite of the rather large amount of lobbying and marketing against it from businesses which it regulates. The FCC was up until recently in a similar position; the current administration has managed to effectively neuter it, for the time being. Lots of new laws come from industry lobbying. Lots of other laws come from legislators doing what they think is right, even if their morals don't agree with someone else's, or they're not particularly knowledgeable on the subject they're legislating. But, lots of other laws also come from science, or panels of experts providing consultation on a subject. > Are there some particularly strong pieces of evidence that you can offer, especially those that might compare the situation between otherwise comparable countries with higher or lower degrees of professional certification requirements? I didn't hit on this point in particular, but I did provide a small handful of links in another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15731261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15731261 My "regulation" tag in pinboard is still a bit light though, so I don't have an immediate reply for you and it's late and I don't want to start nerding on statistics right now. :-)

nkurz 9y ago
I'm not sure if you're implying that there's some hypocrisy here No, I was just wondering whether there was a particular reason that you'd take what appears to be the minority position within tech circles. I'm mostly in the possibly-more-common "the US is over-regulated" camp, tend to be moving farther in that direction, and was wondering what perspective I might be missing. I'm strongly for greater governmental regulation regarding environmental issues (and in general, biased toward regulations that protect the commons from individuals) but generally against regulations that mandate government involvement in what would otherwise be person-to-person interactions. In both cases, though, I worry that new laws are often created for some hidden private agenda rather than for the stated public good, even if the benefit to the public might be real. Usually, I'd prefer that we improve enforcement of our existing rules rather than adding more. Thanks for your excellent answer, and I'll read the links you provided tomorrow.