> Traditional engineers are regulated, certified, and subject to apprenticeship and continuing education. Engineering claims an explicit responsibility to publi

> Traditional engineers are regulated, certified, and subject to apprenticeship and continuing education. Engineering claims an explicit responsibility to public safety and reliability, even if it doesn’t always deliver. The author probably don't know that the Chinese government actually demands similar terms too: you are not allow to sell a piece of software unless the software passes a few certifications, and you must hire enough employees graduated for few government recognized majors/professions in order to start a tech company that's allowed to request those certifications. So I guess China could be a dream country for the author of the article. Welcome BTW. Of course, the entire article was written by someone who has a half-knowledge on what's actually going on, resulted in a flamewere. The mentioning of data breaches can't cover the fact that most software (or digital control systems in general) worked very well, you don't hear from it because there are no people complaining. It can be very problematic if one judges things only based on headlines, because the resulted reasoning might collapse as soon as someone else applies the same logic elsewhere. Say, why a well-engineered dam, built by fully certified engineers with their state-of-the-art disciplinary knowledge, meticulous calculation plus simulation and rigorous construction still failed and caused many lives? Are dam engineers not engineers? The dam engineers would probably come out with some excuses such as real-world complexity, and they would be damn right. Handling a dynamic system is hard, and software engineering is full of it.