3 ms·

Next thing they'll be giving requirements for people building bridges, houses, and gas and electricity fittings. Seriously, I think the time has long since pas

Next thing they'll be giving requirements for people building bridges, houses, and gas and electricity fittings. Seriously, I think the time has long since passed software needs regulating. It's a major part of modern society, and as far as I'm aware, most people aren't opposed to building standards in principle.

none_to_remain 3y ago
People figured out how to build buildings prior to creating building codes
- baseballdork 3y ago
  And people figured out how to fly prior to the FAA. So what?
- helsinkiandrew 3y ago
  And many buildings were built deliberately poorly to make a quick buck - or caught fire too easily or fell down in minor earthquakes (or worse damage other property/people). Peoples homes are a major financial commitment and can ruin people if they're not up to scratch. The regulations are to ensure the 10% of bad builders/developers don't ruin peoples lives.
  - wolvesechoes 3y ago
    And yet, poorly build buildings are still being build, but at least now it is much harder and much more expensive for a person to build their own house, and for a small construction companies to compete with giant monopolies. Yay!
    - bumby 3y ago
      "Poorly build [sic] buildings" depends on context. Even low-quality builds in the US are relatively safe. It's disingenuous to imply they are of the same quality as in countries where building codes are effectively non-existent.
    - IlliOnato 3y ago
      Well, it's not black and white. Regulation hinders progress and makes things more expensive. But no regulation raises costs and hinders progress too: it basically creates a situation of very low trust, and low trust is extremely expensive for customers/buyers who are not domain experts. This also makes them overcautious and conservative. One needs a balance and lots of nuance to make a reasonably well functioning market/system. The case against regulation on software business is not that "regulation is bad". It's that programming and software is very new and rapidly evolving area of human activity. It's not nearly as well understood as building houses. Written and unwritten standards and best practices are constantly changing. The field is subject to very strong fashion-driven "crazes". (Just look at how many new languages are still being created. Most don't become as widespread as C++ or Java or Python, but many do find their niche, and very many are in use to some extent. This indicates that "language Holy Graal" is nowhere to be seen yet.) In software, there is very little consensus between domain experts on most issues. This is very unlike construction and house building, where some new materials ant techniques are introduced too, but the basic principles are well understood, calculable, and where agreement among experts is usually quite achievable. So arguably it's nearly impossible to create good regulation at this stage, at least outside of certain special niches. This is very different from building codes and stuff. Of course there is also bad regulation. The bureaucracy likes to expand their control indefinitely, wants to regulate things that should not be regulated, thus (if unchecked) creating very bad regulation. Well, that's the case for checks and balances, for the society to fight back. But "this regulation is bad and needs to be changed" is a much more mature position than "we need no f*g regulation!", in my opinion...
- jhardy54 3y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collap...
- YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London Building a building without regulation is easy. Building a city that doesn't burn to the ground every time someone knocks over an oil lamp is not.
- RhodesianHunter 3y ago
  People also died, a lot.
- bumby 3y ago
  Define "figured out." Did people know how to cobble together a structure? Of course. Did they inherently know all the best practices that reasonably balance safety, cost, and timeliness? Probably not. The same can be applied to software. An ability to cobble together a "Hello World" does not necessarily mean I want you programming a controls system on a nuclear power plant.
seanw444 3y ago
The wild west had a lot less danger and death than Hollywood makes it out to seem. Likewise, I'm going to miss the internet and computing as we know it now when it's regulated to shit like everything else. Nothing nice ever lasts. Complete safety, or actual freedom. Pick one. You can't have both.
- joosters 3y ago
  Please don't insult the 2014 government safety film 'A Million Ways to Die in the West'.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  > Pick one Or, maybe pick a point on a spectrum. That seems more realistic, because I'd argue you can't really have "Complete Safety" or "Actual Freedom" (by which I am guessing some people would interpret 'actual' as 'complete').
- bumby 3y ago
  >Complete safety, or actual freedom. Pick one. You can't have both. False dichotomies aren't helpful and underscore lazy thinking. The real world is full of nuance, and so should our policies. Using a risk-based approach is probably more appropriate than an all-or-nothing policy.
logicchains 3y ago
If software had been regulated like engineering we'd still be writing horrible OO-heavy enterprise Java style code like in the 90s and UML would be mandatory.
- trealira 3y ago
  We'd probably be using Ada. The government used to mandate that contractors write software in Ada, but they stopped because of the pushback they got; now they also use C++.
gosub100 3y ago
They'll "regulate" a bunch of controls to make corporations more efficient at making money, while limiting their liability when they get hacked and increasing the barrier to compete with them. If we want a safer internet, make them carry insurance against data breaches and fine them a fixed amount, say $1500, for each identity they leak, paid immediately upon proof of pwnage.

none_to_remain 3y ago

People figured out how to build buildings prior to creating building codes

baseballdork 3y ago
And people figured out how to fly prior to the FAA. So what?
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
And many buildings were built deliberately poorly to make a quick buck - or caught fire too easily or fell down in minor earthquakes (or worse damage other property/people). Peoples homes are a major financial commitment and can ruin people if they're not up to scratch. The regulations are to ensure the 10% of bad builders/developers don't ruin peoples lives.
- wolvesechoes 3y ago
  And yet, poorly build buildings are still being build, but at least now it is much harder and much more expensive for a person to build their own house, and for a small construction companies to compete with giant monopolies. Yay!
  - bumby 3y ago
    "Poorly build [sic] buildings" depends on context. Even low-quality builds in the US are relatively safe. It's disingenuous to imply they are of the same quality as in countries where building codes are effectively non-existent.
  - IlliOnato 3y ago
    Well, it's not black and white. Regulation hinders progress and makes things more expensive. But no regulation raises costs and hinders progress too: it basically creates a situation of very low trust, and low trust is extremely expensive for customers/buyers who are not domain experts. This also makes them overcautious and conservative. One needs a balance and lots of nuance to make a reasonably well functioning market/system. The case against regulation on software business is not that "regulation is bad". It's that programming and software is very new and rapidly evolving area of human activity. It's not nearly as well understood as building houses. Written and unwritten standards and best practices are constantly changing. The field is subject to very strong fashion-driven "crazes". (Just look at how many new languages are still being created. Most don't become as widespread as C++ or Java or Python, but many do find their niche, and very many are in use to some extent. This indicates that "language Holy Graal" is nowhere to be seen yet.) In software, there is very little consensus between domain experts on most issues. This is very unlike construction and house building, where some new materials ant techniques are introduced too, but the basic principles are well understood, calculable, and where agreement among experts is usually quite achievable. So arguably it's nearly impossible to create good regulation at this stage, at least outside of certain special niches. This is very different from building codes and stuff. Of course there is also bad regulation. The bureaucracy likes to expand their control indefinitely, wants to regulate things that should not be regulated, thus (if unchecked) creating very bad regulation. Well, that's the case for checks and balances, for the society to fight back. But "this regulation is bad and needs to be changed" is a much more mature position than "we need no f*g regulation!", in my opinion...
jhardy54 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collapse https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_Regency_walkway_collap...
YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_London Building a building without regulation is easy. Building a city that doesn't burn to the ground every time someone knocks over an oil lamp is not.
RhodesianHunter 3y ago
People also died, a lot.
bumby 3y ago
Define "figured out." Did people know how to cobble together a structure? Of course. Did they inherently know all the best practices that reasonably balance safety, cost, and timeliness? Probably not. The same can be applied to software. An ability to cobble together a "Hello World" does not necessarily mean I want you programming a controls system on a nuclear power plant.

seanw444 3y ago

The wild west had a lot less danger and death than Hollywood makes it out to seem. Likewise, I'm going to miss the internet and computing as we know it now when it's regulated to shit like everything else. Nothing nice ever lasts. Complete safety, or actual freedom. Pick one. You can't have both.

joosters 3y ago
Please don't insult the 2014 government safety film 'A Million Ways to Die in the West'.
jvanderbot 3y ago
> Pick one Or, maybe pick a point on a spectrum. That seems more realistic, because I'd argue you can't really have "Complete Safety" or "Actual Freedom" (by which I am guessing some people would interpret 'actual' as 'complete').
bumby 3y ago
>Complete safety, or actual freedom. Pick one. You can't have both. False dichotomies aren't helpful and underscore lazy thinking. The real world is full of nuance, and so should our policies. Using a risk-based approach is probably more appropriate than an all-or-nothing policy.

logicchains 3y ago

If software had been regulated like engineering we'd still be writing horrible OO-heavy enterprise Java style code like in the 90s and UML would be mandatory.

trealira 3y ago
We'd probably be using Ada. The government used to mandate that contractors write software in Ada, but they stopped because of the pushback they got; now they also use C++.

gosub100 3y ago

They'll "regulate" a bunch of controls to make corporations more efficient at making money, while limiting their liability when they get hacked and increasing the barrier to compete with them. If we want a safer internet, make them carry insurance against data breaches and fine them a fixed amount, say $1500, for each identity they leak, paid immediately upon proof of pwnage.