6 ms·

This is a great example of the general principle that what often gets dismissed as operator error is better recognized as design flaw. When SpaceShipTwo broke

This is a great example of the general principle that what often gets dismissed as operator error is better recognized as design flaw. When SpaceShipTwo broke up mid-flight, the FAA did not place all the blame on the pilot who accidentally engaged the feathering mechanism during ascent. They thoroughly dragged the aircraft's designers for producing a design that made it so easy to do such a thing in the first place. They weren't willing to accept, "We said not to do it in the manual," as an appropriate safeguard in that case. Why are they doing it here? If we want to call ourselves software engineers, we need to start holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. We can do better.

CoastalCoder 4y ago
I agree with most of your points. But I think the term "engineer" means more to you than it does most practitioners, unfortunately.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  Job title inflation is a hell of a drug.
vsareto 4y ago
>If we want to call ourselves software engineers, we need to start holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. We can do better. There's a limit to individual accountability. You need professional accreditation which brings training, standards, and legal resources.
- wyager 4y ago
  Software is still developing at a pace that burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Defaulting to red tape as the mechanism to improve the quality of software is also very short-sighted. Software engineering has the absolutely unique property among all engineering disciplines that we are working with abstract systems which are subject to formal verification. We can get arbitrarily high levels of assurance, with zero need whatsoever for some stodgy accreditation body. This is not happening much at the moment because money is (artificially) cheap, so it makes sense to hack together some crap and get it out the door as quickly as possible. There are solutions to this; slapping regulations on software is not the best one.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    > burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Typical holier-than-thou software industry arrogance and hubris. There is nothing forcing red tape regulation on all engineers nor would it for software engineers.
    - wyager 4y ago
      What exactly do you think becoming more like e.g. civil engineering actually entails?
  - vsareto 4y ago
    Establishing a consistent level of competence and training for entrants is important for consistent quality in the field. It will also help companies to stop inventing their own unique interview process and just look for verified accreditation when determining whether to hire someone. It's absolutely bonkers that some companies don't trust the general population of devs with 5+ years of verified experience and still gives them technical interviews. But you can't really point them to a good standard to hire with either.
    - wyager 4y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law Only metrics resistant to Goodhart will work here, and most of them are illegal to use in the US under the current employment law paradigm. One of the reasons software as an industry makes so much money is there are still ways to implement Goodhart-resistant hiring in the US. Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous, so I will leave it there.
      - vsareto 4y ago
        >Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous I don't exactly believe that. And we have other professional exams/processes that generate good professionals. Folding over and saying "Oh we can't do this, Goodhart's law exists" just seems like a weak reason to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
- marmetio 4y ago
  Yeah, it's the responsibility of their safety office to make sure their processes are adequate. Search for jobs like "FAA Safety Engineer".
kenny11 4y ago
But it wasn't the FAA that placed the blame on the SpaceShipTwo designers, it was the NTSB. Hopefully there's a similarly independent agency that can lead an investigation of the NOTAM debacle.
- landemva 4y ago
  Yep, FAA was owned by Boeing before the 737MAX debacle. It amazes me the public flies on that airframe which has the engines so far forward it can pitch up uncontrollably.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

CoastalCoder 4y ago

I agree with most of your points. But I think the term "engineer" means more to you than it does most practitioners, unfortunately.

mumblemumble 4y ago
Job title inflation is a hell of a drug.

vsareto 4y ago

>If we want to call ourselves software engineers, we need to start holding ourselves and each other to higher standards. We can do better. There's a limit to individual accountability. You need professional accreditation which brings training, standards, and legal resources.

wyager 4y ago
Software is still developing at a pace that burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Defaulting to red tape as the mechanism to improve the quality of software is also very short-sighted. Software engineering has the absolutely unique property among all engineering disciplines that we are working with abstract systems which are subject to formal verification. We can get arbitrarily high levels of assurance, with zero need whatsoever for some stodgy accreditation body. This is not happening much at the moment because money is (artificially) cheap, so it makes sense to hack together some crap and get it out the door as quickly as possible. There are solutions to this; slapping regulations on software is not the best one.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  > burdensome regulatory red tape would represent a completely unacceptable destruction of value. Typical holier-than-thou software industry arrogance and hubris. There is nothing forcing red tape regulation on all engineers nor would it for software engineers.
  - wyager 4y ago
    What exactly do you think becoming more like e.g. civil engineering actually entails?
- vsareto 4y ago
  Establishing a consistent level of competence and training for entrants is important for consistent quality in the field. It will also help companies to stop inventing their own unique interview process and just look for verified accreditation when determining whether to hire someone. It's absolutely bonkers that some companies don't trust the general population of devs with 5+ years of verified experience and still gives them technical interviews. But you can't really point them to a good standard to hire with either.
  - wyager 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law Only metrics resistant to Goodhart will work here, and most of them are illegal to use in the US under the current employment law paradigm. One of the reasons software as an industry makes so much money is there are still ways to implement Goodhart-resistant hiring in the US. Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous, so I will leave it there.
    - vsareto 4y ago
      >Going into too much detail here is somewhat hazardous I don't exactly believe that. And we have other professional exams/processes that generate good professionals. Folding over and saying "Oh we can't do this, Goodhart's law exists" just seems like a weak reason to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_is_the_enemy_of_good
marmetio 4y ago
Yeah, it's the responsibility of their safety office to make sure their processes are adequate. Search for jobs like "FAA Safety Engineer".

kenny11 4y ago

But it wasn't the FAA that placed the blame on the SpaceShipTwo designers, it was the NTSB. Hopefully there's a similarly independent agency that can lead an investigation of the NOTAM debacle.

landemva 4y ago
Yep, FAA was owned by Boeing before the 737MAX debacle. It amazes me the public flies on that airframe which has the engines so far forward it can pitch up uncontrollably.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]