3 ms·

Okay this is probably something that needs a very high level of stability. But many apps/websites arent about life and death. If hackernews goes down no one die

Okay this is probably something that needs a very high level of stability. But many apps/websites arent about life and death. If hackernews goes down no one dies. If a bridge goes down people might die. That is why civil engineering is more regulated (and work takes more time than if it wasnt).

asveikau 3y ago
I think programmers can actually misjudge when their bugs are negatively impacting people's lives, especially when they are in the mindset to justify not fixing a bug or improving on a broken design. I've had some experiences working on some popular software, and have definitely seen people trivialize the impact of a bug in ways that do not appreciate that end users are putting the software in the middle of their life, and hence not understanding what it means to the end user when stuff is broken. So a programmer saying "dude relax, it's just a website" doesn't really hold weight to me. To you, a programmer who doesn't want responsibility or hasn't prioritized a bug, it's just a website. To the end user, maybe they are using it in a way you don't expect, they want it to work, and it actually is meaningfully harmful to them when it fails in some way. You can say it's on them for "misusing" your app but ... Again, that's blaming the user for your bugs. A real world example I recall was a colleague who trivialized data loss and reasoned that nobody stores important stuff on that app. The customer complaint was that the "trivial" data that was lost was a recording of his deceased father, or something of the sort.
- jen20 3y ago
  > I think programmers can actually misjudge when their bugs are negatively impacting people's lives Negatively impacting peoples lives via advertisements is the raison d'être of many software engineering jobs.
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  > A real world example I recall was a colleague who trivialized data loss and reasoned that nobody stores important stuff on that app. The customer complaint was that the "trivial" data that was lost was a recording of his deceased father, or something of the sort. Wow. I would be beside myself. Ecamm PhoneView is something I used regularly. They discontinued it and suggested moving to iMazing, but it doesn’t contemplate the same use case or workflows, and is a poor replacement albeit very useful and powerful for other uses. This is why I strive to place myself in the customer’s shoes when building and improving something. Don’t take from them, listen to their feedback, let them guide the product within reason, and don’t lose sight of the fact that they’re paying you to work for their interests.
hn_version_0023 3y ago
Some software work requires the same level of engineering as public works like roads, bridges, electrical grids, pace makers, etc. Most software probably doesn't require that level of rigor. IMO, those who work on critical software ought to be formally licensed like "normal" engineers who design roads, bridges, and so on. I think about chiropractors when I think on this topic. They don't have the same training, the same level of rigor or skill (IMO). But they can still help people, hell some folks swear by it. But the point is, they aren't formally licensed in the same way and still make their living. It isn't a perfect analogy, admittedly. Nor is it a welcome topic on this forum! Regardless, I believe some industries should require licensed software engineers.
brightlancer 3y ago
Industry standards are overwhelmingly better than government regulations (laws). > Okay this is probably something that needs a very high level of stability. But many apps/websites arent about life and death. If hackernews goes down no one dies. If a bridge goes down people might die. That is why civil engineering is more regulated (and work takes more time than if it wasnt). Yeah, sometimes folks are working on something that doesn't matter at all, but that's the exception rather than the norm. As a general rule, what we do can cost someone their life or their livelihood: sure my foul-up might not kill any users/ customers, but the lost ad revenue might cost some junior Nobody their job as part of budget cuts. That person loses their income for rent and for food, they lose their health insurance (maybe for their family), and I don't have a care in the world because my foul-up didn't impact me in any meaningful way. Everything involves risk and we shouldn't punish individuals for taking a risk we told them to take -- but we often take risks without considering the consequences, and without _bearing_ any of the consequences. It's called a "moral hazard".

asveikau 3y ago

I think programmers can actually misjudge when their bugs are negatively impacting people's lives, especially when they are in the mindset to justify not fixing a bug or improving on a broken design. I've had some experiences working on some popular software, and have definitely seen people trivialize the impact of a bug in ways that do not appreciate that end users are putting the software in the middle of their life, and hence not understanding what it means to the end user when stuff is broken. So a programmer saying "dude relax, it's just a website" doesn't really hold weight to me. To you, a programmer who doesn't want responsibility or hasn't prioritized a bug, it's just a website. To the end user, maybe they are using it in a way you don't expect, they want it to work, and it actually is meaningfully harmful to them when it fails in some way. You can say it's on them for "misusing" your app but ... Again, that's blaming the user for your bugs. A real world example I recall was a colleague who trivialized data loss and reasoned that nobody stores important stuff on that app. The customer complaint was that the "trivial" data that was lost was a recording of his deceased father, or something of the sort.

jen20 3y ago
> I think programmers can actually misjudge when their bugs are negatively impacting people's lives Negatively impacting peoples lives via advertisements is the raison d'être of many software engineering jobs.
TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
> A real world example I recall was a colleague who trivialized data loss and reasoned that nobody stores important stuff on that app. The customer complaint was that the "trivial" data that was lost was a recording of his deceased father, or something of the sort. Wow. I would be beside myself. Ecamm PhoneView is something I used regularly. They discontinued it and suggested moving to iMazing, but it doesn’t contemplate the same use case or workflows, and is a poor replacement albeit very useful and powerful for other uses. This is why I strive to place myself in the customer’s shoes when building and improving something. Don’t take from them, listen to their feedback, let them guide the product within reason, and don’t lose sight of the fact that they’re paying you to work for their interests.

hn_version_0023 3y ago

Some software work requires the same level of engineering as public works like roads, bridges, electrical grids, pace makers, etc. Most software probably doesn't require that level of rigor. IMO, those who work on critical software ought to be formally licensed like "normal" engineers who design roads, bridges, and so on. I think about chiropractors when I think on this topic. They don't have the same training, the same level of rigor or skill (IMO). But they can still help people, hell some folks swear by it. But the point is, they aren't formally licensed in the same way and still make their living. It isn't a perfect analogy, admittedly. Nor is it a welcome topic on this forum! Regardless, I believe some industries should require licensed software engineers.

brightlancer 3y ago

Industry standards are overwhelmingly better than government regulations (laws). > Okay this is probably something that needs a very high level of stability. But many apps/websites arent about life and death. If hackernews goes down no one dies. If a bridge goes down people might die. That is why civil engineering is more regulated (and work takes more time than if it wasnt). Yeah, sometimes folks are working on something that doesn't matter at all, but that's the exception rather than the norm. As a general rule, what we do can cost someone their life or their livelihood: sure my foul-up might not kill any users/ customers, but the lost ad revenue might cost some junior Nobody their job as part of budget cuts. That person loses their income for rent and for food, they lose their health insurance (maybe for their family), and I don't have a care in the world because my foul-up didn't impact me in any meaningful way. Everything involves risk and we shouldn't punish individuals for taking a risk we told them to take -- but we often take risks without considering the consequences, and without _bearing_ any of the consequences. It's called a "moral hazard".