5 ms·

Designed a bridge that injures no-one and collapses a few hours later? 5 year suspension. Programmed a faulty flight control system that kills hundreds of peop

Designed a bridge that injures no-one and collapses a few hours later? 5 year suspension. Programmed a faulty flight control system that kills hundreds of people and ground all planes that use it for nearly two years? Probably a promotion, if I had to guess. Can someone remind me why software engineers can't be held to higher standards?

dudul 3y ago
Has this happened? I can't imagine something like this where the software company is not liable. But maybe I'm too naive.
photonerd 3y ago
Because they would involve holding the entire managerial chain to that standard too. Plus, it’s slower, and we can’t miss those product metrics, right?!? It can be done. Places like NASA do it. For JavaScript too even. …but it has to be a culture thing. Either by choice or by regulation. Because otherwise it ends up being about shoveling crap as fast as possible.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I have an acquaintance who works for one of NASA's laboratories as a technician. The simplified distinction as he explained it to me is: Engineers are the guys who painstakingly design things, with reams of university degrees as appropriate for their credentials. Technicians are the guys who painstakingly implement the engineer's designs on paper into physical things. Academic credentials not necessarily required. The vast majority of the people who call themselves or are called "engineers" should not be called engineers.
  - figassis 3y ago
    There is also the subset of actual software engineers (incl. degrees) that are hired to rapid fire features. In fact most engineers are hired to do this, because move fast and break things. Usually telling a PM that feature X needs proper analysis and design and that can take multiple sprints, they go “how can we break it into smaller pieces so we can deliver each sprint”. Sometimes you can’t do that. You engineers simply get into developer mode.
jeroenhd 3y ago
This is a good argument for protecting titles like "engineer". Programmers love calling themselves engineers, but they'd better be careful in places where there are consequences attached to the term. The system is useless without protections in place to prevent it from becoming a racket, but I'm not opposed to such a system.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > This is a good argument for protecting titles like "engineer". That battle was lost long ago. I saw a truck driver by a ‘tree surgeon’ the other day.
  - conductr 3y ago
    Tree Surgeons is the name of the company that trims my trees. They do employ arborists which is slightly above landscaper in qualifications
- gnabgib 3y ago
  It *is* protected where this fellow practised. It's also a 5yo story. You can't be an engineer in Canada without being held to the same values (it's a regulated title[0]). Much to the chagrin of boot-camps, and US employers. [0]: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-the-code-of-ethics https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-...
  - petermcneeley 3y ago
    Also we also have pEng which means professional engineer. Most of the Software Engineers in Canada (even though with actually engineering degrees) are not professional engineers.
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    I know, that's why the suspension was possible in the first place.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tekla 3y ago
Software "engineers" refuse to believe somethings is their fault, and push responsibility to everyone else but the "engineer". My professors had no qualms about failing people because if you are not good enough to pass an exam, you are not good enough to be trusted with peoples lives.
paulddraper 3y ago
Can you link the event you're referencing? I'm unfamiliar.
- lampshades 3y ago
  Boeing 737 Max 8
  - dudul 3y ago
    https://www.wisnerbaum.com/aviation-accident/boeing-plane-crash/boeing-737-max-8-crashes/ https://www.wisnerbaum.com/aviation-accident/boeing-plane-cr... I didn't read the whole thing but it doesn't look like software modifications were the main issue.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- defrost 3y ago
  As part of my undergraduate engineering course work we had more seperate threads and more exams than almost every other degree on campus including law and medicine. Part of that was civil, part electrical, part electronic, part mechanical, part drawing, part on site saftey, part drawing, etc. Another key part, critical to passing, was ethics, civil responsibility and a roll call of great engineering screw ups that killed people as case studies of how badly things can go wrong. If Software Engineering were to become an equivilant then a study of when software goes fatal would be mandatory.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    I recall Therac 25. I didn't hear about that fatal aviation software.
fouc 3y ago
> every state regulates the practice of engineering to ensure public safety by granting only Professional Engineers (PEs) the authority to sign and seal engineering plans and offer their services to the public. There's a big difference between the typical so-called "software engineers" and actual Professional Engineers that are qualified to put the P.Eng. designation next to their name.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Because their employers want them to "move fast and break things". Demanding documented requirements and a tight change process is something that's more likely to get a SE fired than be appreciated.
bboygravity 3y ago
Politicians kill far more people through corruption with 0 consequence though.
- lampshades 3y ago
  Fair point. Maybe us programmers are just a class above professional engineers. Should've been a politician.
gene91 3y ago
I thought the root causes of 737 Max failure is (1) marketing’s choice to make a new plane that pilots with existing 737 certificate can fly with little or no training (2) the lack of a third sensor. Why is this the software engineers’ fault?
- abduhl 3y ago
  Well the root cause of this bridge failure was (1) the municipality’s choice not to pay for a geotechnical investigation and (2) not using extra helical piers, so why is this failure the structural engineer’s fault?
- WalterBright 3y ago
  There were several factors causing the accident: 1. The AOA sensor was faulty 2. The installation of the AOA sensor apparently didn't check for proper operation 3. The MCAS system was connected to only one of the two AOA sensors 4. The MCAS system had too much authority 5. The LA pilots did not think to turn off the stab trim system when it ran away 6. The EA pilots did not receive, read or remember the Emergency Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX pilots after the first crash that basically said to turn off the stab trim when it runs away 7. The first MCAS incident was when the crew simply turned off the stab trim and landed safely. The information about the faulty sensor was not passed on to the next crew, who crashed.
petermcneeley 3y ago
What was the cause of the plane incident you cited?
tw1984 3y ago
> Can someone remind me why software engineers can't be held to higher standards? because most of the time, civil engineers employ proven techs to solve problems that have been solved 100 or 1,000 times already. software engineers, I mean real engineers, face completely new issues in every aspect of the job on daily basis. just remind me how much changed for civil engineering in the last 20-30 years? how is that compared to software engineering? let's just be honest, those people shouldn't be called engineers, they are more like technicians, as most part of their jobs don't involve anything new.
- abduhl 3y ago
  dude most software “engineers” copy paste code from stackoverflow and load up a library of functions written by somebody else I guess the code is from ChatGPT now so that’s a big advancement?
WalterBright 3y ago
Because it wasn't a bug in the software. The software worked according to spec. The spec was wrong.

dudul 3y ago

Has this happened? I can't imagine something like this where the software company is not liable. But maybe I'm too naive.

photonerd 3y ago

Because they would involve holding the entire managerial chain to that standard too. Plus, it’s slower, and we can’t miss those product metrics, right?!? It can be done. Places like NASA do it. For JavaScript too even. …but it has to be a culture thing. Either by choice or by regulation. Because otherwise it ends up being about shoveling crap as fast as possible.

Dalewyn 3y ago
I have an acquaintance who works for one of NASA's laboratories as a technician. The simplified distinction as he explained it to me is: Engineers are the guys who painstakingly design things, with reams of university degrees as appropriate for their credentials. Technicians are the guys who painstakingly implement the engineer's designs on paper into physical things. Academic credentials not necessarily required. The vast majority of the people who call themselves or are called "engineers" should not be called engineers.
- figassis 3y ago
  There is also the subset of actual software engineers (incl. degrees) that are hired to rapid fire features. In fact most engineers are hired to do this, because move fast and break things. Usually telling a PM that feature X needs proper analysis and design and that can take multiple sprints, they go “how can we break it into smaller pieces so we can deliver each sprint”. Sometimes you can’t do that. You engineers simply get into developer mode.

jeroenhd 3y ago

This is a good argument for protecting titles like "engineer". Programmers love calling themselves engineers, but they'd better be careful in places where there are consequences attached to the term. The system is useless without protections in place to prevent it from becoming a racket, but I'm not opposed to such a system.

lostlogin 3y ago
> This is a good argument for protecting titles like "engineer". That battle was lost long ago. I saw a truck driver by a ‘tree surgeon’ the other day.
- conductr 3y ago
  Tree Surgeons is the name of the company that trims my trees. They do employ arborists which is slightly above landscaper in qualifications
gnabgib 3y ago
It *is* protected where this fellow practised. It's also a 5yo story. You can't be an engineer in Canada without being held to the same values (it's a regulated title[0]). Much to the chagrin of boot-camps, and US employers. [0]: https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-the-code-of-ethics https://engineerscanada.ca/publications/public-guideline-on-...
- petermcneeley 3y ago
  Also we also have pEng which means professional engineer. Most of the Software Engineers in Canada (even though with actually engineering degrees) are not professional engineers.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  I know, that's why the suspension was possible in the first place.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tekla 3y ago

Software "engineers" refuse to believe somethings is their fault, and push responsibility to everyone else but the "engineer". My professors had no qualms about failing people because if you are not good enough to pass an exam, you are not good enough to be trusted with peoples lives.

paulddraper 3y ago

Can you link the event you're referencing? I'm unfamiliar.

lampshades 3y ago
Boeing 737 Max 8
- dudul 3y ago
  https://www.wisnerbaum.com/aviation-accident/boeing-plane-crash/boeing-737-max-8-crashes/ https://www.wisnerbaum.com/aviation-accident/boeing-plane-cr... I didn't read the whole thing but it doesn't look like software modifications were the main issue.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
defrost 3y ago
As part of my undergraduate engineering course work we had more seperate threads and more exams than almost every other degree on campus including law and medicine. Part of that was civil, part electrical, part electronic, part mechanical, part drawing, part on site saftey, part drawing, etc. Another key part, critical to passing, was ethics, civil responsibility and a roll call of great engineering screw ups that killed people as case studies of how badly things can go wrong. If Software Engineering were to become an equivilant then a study of when software goes fatal would be mandatory.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  I recall Therac 25. I didn't hear about that fatal aviation software.

fouc 3y ago

> every state regulates the practice of engineering to ensure public safety by granting only Professional Engineers (PEs) the authority to sign and seal engineering plans and offer their services to the public. There's a big difference between the typical so-called "software engineers" and actual Professional Engineers that are qualified to put the P.Eng. designation next to their name.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Mountain_Skies 3y ago

Because their employers want them to "move fast and break things". Demanding documented requirements and a tight change process is something that's more likely to get a SE fired than be appreciated.

bboygravity 3y ago

Politicians kill far more people through corruption with 0 consequence though.

lampshades 3y ago
Fair point. Maybe us programmers are just a class above professional engineers. Should've been a politician.

gene91 3y ago

I thought the root causes of 737 Max failure is (1) marketing’s choice to make a new plane that pilots with existing 737 certificate can fly with little or no training (2) the lack of a third sensor. Why is this the software engineers’ fault?

abduhl 3y ago
Well the root cause of this bridge failure was (1) the municipality’s choice not to pay for a geotechnical investigation and (2) not using extra helical piers, so why is this failure the structural engineer’s fault?
WalterBright 3y ago
There were several factors causing the accident: 1. The AOA sensor was faulty 2. The installation of the AOA sensor apparently didn't check for proper operation 3. The MCAS system was connected to only one of the two AOA sensors 4. The MCAS system had too much authority 5. The LA pilots did not think to turn off the stab trim system when it ran away 6. The EA pilots did not receive, read or remember the Emergency Airworthiness Directive sent to all MAX pilots after the first crash that basically said to turn off the stab trim when it runs away 7. The first MCAS incident was when the crew simply turned off the stab trim and landed safely. The information about the faulty sensor was not passed on to the next crew, who crashed.

petermcneeley 3y ago

What was the cause of the plane incident you cited?

tw1984 3y ago

> Can someone remind me why software engineers can't be held to higher standards? because most of the time, civil engineers employ proven techs to solve problems that have been solved 100 or 1,000 times already. software engineers, I mean real engineers, face completely new issues in every aspect of the job on daily basis. just remind me how much changed for civil engineering in the last 20-30 years? how is that compared to software engineering? let's just be honest, those people shouldn't be called engineers, they are more like technicians, as most part of their jobs don't involve anything new.

abduhl 3y ago
dude most software “engineers” copy paste code from stackoverflow and load up a library of functions written by somebody else I guess the code is from ChatGPT now so that’s a big advancement?

WalterBright 3y ago

Because it wasn't a bug in the software. The software worked according to spec. The spec was wrong.