4 ms·

I fail to see where any of your examples feature engineers speaking out, taking responsibility, and opening themselves to scrutiny before the problems became kn

I fail to see where any of your examples feature engineers speaking out, taking responsibility, and opening themselves to scrutiny before the problems became known. These are good examples of engineers being complicit or worse. > Tesla Full-Self Driving - advertising full self driving capability when it's at best assisted Since you have a bone to pick with Tesla though, I looked up how they're advertising full self driving. From their website "While no Tesla cars are fully autonomous today and require active driver supervision,". > and has led to multiple deaths https://www.tesladeaths.com/ https://www.tesladeaths.com/ This page does not appear to keep track of "Full Self Driving" deaths. Autopilot deaths are 5-10% of the deaths from Tesla wrecks, however they keep track of data. Doesn't really seem outlandish but it's obviously very hard to know -- it could be anywhere from a lot worse to a lot better than human only drivers, going by these numbers. You do know though that no company advertises these driver assists as offering complete protection from death. I don't think that's quite in the same category as the first two examples. > I don't doubt that engineers have done monstrous things, but only when the engineer is a stakeholder. In this case, they aren't your typical employee. No, this is not true. As well as being unintentionally incompetent, lazy, not keeping up with best practices etc., people get emotionally invested in their company, their teams, their project, their careers and cause them to knowingly and actively participate in these things even if they may not directly (or at all) stand to gain financially.

h0l0cube 5y ago
> No, this is not true. As well as being unintentionally incompetent, lazy, not keeping up with best practices etc., people get emotionally invested in their company, their teams, their project, their careers and cause them to knowingly and actively participate in these things even if they may not directly (or at all) stand to gain financially. Once again, my assertion is that the motivation is typically not coming bottom-up from the engineers themselves, but top-down from senior management and stakeholders. Competent engineers who work in aviation, automotive, construction, etc. are generally motivated to avoid failure conditions. I'd actually be keen to know if you have any significant examples to the contrary - undoubtedly they exist. I'm not sure how you could fill the role of CEO, with a strong profit motive, and not be at conflict with an engineering mindset. It's possible that Elon is more scrupulous than most, and better placed to anticipate failure modes with his engineering background, but his messaging particularly on FSD has been leaned more towards market optimism, driving sales, generating investment, than the safety of passengers. > Since you have a bone to pick with Tesla I don't, but I don't lionize Tesla or Elon either.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Your assertion was that it never comes from engineers. If you accept that was too strong and want to adjust your claim okay, but don't make as though that's what I was arguing about. > I don't, but I don't lionize Tesla or Elon either. If you don't address or retract any of the seemingly incorrect claims you made about Tesla, that suggests to me that you do.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    > don't make as though that's what I was arguing about You were arguing that that engineers are often unscrupulous, I'd counter argue that actually their managers and the stakeholders are often unscrupulous and force them into complicity. My claim is that the responsibility ought to be at the top. Edit: But I think I agree that even if peers hold each others to account in engineering, it doesn't really matter. They don't hold the power to change institutions. I know there are Engineering societies... and I think in some domains you need a licence to practice that could be revoked, but this isn't true of your typical aerospace firmware coder. > seemingly incorrect claims you made about Tesla Such as? Regarding FSD, the deaths stats only break out numbers for autopilot. You might argue that the drivers are responsible for their actions if they leave their hands off the steering wheel, but encouraging any kind of overconfidence or complacency is putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk - all for marketing purposes. As for having a bone to pick, I provided 3 examples of well publicized engineering failures in recent years. You zeroed in on Tesla which is fair given the OP, but not evidence of me having a bone to pick, an axe to grind, or what have you :)
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      > You were arguing that that engineers are often unscrupulous Wrong. > Such as? I already pointed them out several posts earlier in the thread.
      - h0l0cube 5y ago
        > Wrong. Maybe you're thinking of black hats? But they aren't operating as engineers. Still, from you, no examples, no evidence, but intransigence. Such a mindset would not be becoming of a scrupulous engineer, so you might be right after all - or you're less qualified on the subject than even me

h0l0cube 5y ago

> No, this is not true. As well as being unintentionally incompetent, lazy, not keeping up with best practices etc., people get emotionally invested in their company, their teams, their project, their careers and cause them to knowingly and actively participate in these things even if they may not directly (or at all) stand to gain financially. Once again, my assertion is that the motivation is typically not coming bottom-up from the engineers themselves, but top-down from senior management and stakeholders. Competent engineers who work in aviation, automotive, construction, etc. are generally motivated to avoid failure conditions. I'd actually be keen to know if you have any significant examples to the contrary - undoubtedly they exist. I'm not sure how you could fill the role of CEO, with a strong profit motive, and not be at conflict with an engineering mindset. It's possible that Elon is more scrupulous than most, and better placed to anticipate failure modes with his engineering background, but his messaging particularly on FSD has been leaned more towards market optimism, driving sales, generating investment, than the safety of passengers. > Since you have a bone to pick with Tesla I don't, but I don't lionize Tesla or Elon either.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Your assertion was that it never comes from engineers. If you accept that was too strong and want to adjust your claim okay, but don't make as though that's what I was arguing about. > I don't, but I don't lionize Tesla or Elon either. If you don't address or retract any of the seemingly incorrect claims you made about Tesla, that suggests to me that you do.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  > don't make as though that's what I was arguing about You were arguing that that engineers are often unscrupulous, I'd counter argue that actually their managers and the stakeholders are often unscrupulous and force them into complicity. My claim is that the responsibility ought to be at the top. Edit: But I think I agree that even if peers hold each others to account in engineering, it doesn't really matter. They don't hold the power to change institutions. I know there are Engineering societies... and I think in some domains you need a licence to practice that could be revoked, but this isn't true of your typical aerospace firmware coder. > seemingly incorrect claims you made about Tesla Such as? Regarding FSD, the deaths stats only break out numbers for autopilot. You might argue that the drivers are responsible for their actions if they leave their hands off the steering wheel, but encouraging any kind of overconfidence or complacency is putting other drivers and pedestrians at risk - all for marketing purposes. As for having a bone to pick, I provided 3 examples of well publicized engineering failures in recent years. You zeroed in on Tesla which is fair given the OP, but not evidence of me having a bone to pick, an axe to grind, or what have you :)
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > You were arguing that that engineers are often unscrupulous Wrong. > Such as? I already pointed them out several posts earlier in the thread.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      > Wrong. Maybe you're thinking of black hats? But they aren't operating as engineers. Still, from you, no examples, no evidence, but intransigence. Such a mindset would not be becoming of a scrupulous engineer, so you might be right after all - or you're less qualified on the subject than even me