16 ms·

National Engineering Handbook

145 points by minroot 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago
Does anyone know what this publication is designed for and by whom, and why only certain chapters are published?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teitoklien 3y ago
  It’s part of the USDA Directives system which is the online repository of all USDA Departmental Regulations, Notices, Manuals, Guidebooks, etc. A lot of US departments, publish books like this. I’m a non-American, but i still often read books published by your government :D , they are certainly very cool. I wish our government had something like this. An interesting sidenote i wanted to mention the US Military also publishes books on various combat skills and guides on making defensive weapons for your public citizen to defend their communities incase of an invasion or government collapse[1]. I’ve come to realise that a good portion of your government sure as hell cares deeply about protecting your citizen’s right to defend themselves whether by carrying arms, or publishing books on guerilla tactics, and home making arms to protect oneself in the event of a crisis I get the right to carry arms is controversial in your country, It’s not allowed for common citizens here either unless they can prove a risk of life to themselves, but I always come across moments in history, where governments choose to genocide their own people [2] and it makes me think that maybe, what the american constitution creators thought of, which is now characterized as extreme civil liberty wasn’t a bad idea after all. People sometimes forget how unstable our freedoms truly are, and how often governments across history and in each country have betrayed their own people. - [1](https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S.+Military&s=relevancerank&text=Pentagon+U.S.+Military&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S...) - [2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Freedoms are also betrayed by other citizens, including those with guns. I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot.
    - abfan1127 3y ago
      The Cambodians weren't concerned either.
      - pdabbadabba 3y ago
        This seems plausible, but is this just a throwaway statement or is it supported by historical evidence? It's actually a pretty interesting question, that has never occurred to me until now, how well people have historically been able to judge the safety and stability of their own political situations. Perhaps there's some literature out there on this?
        Loughla 3y ago
        I don't have references, but I don't think people are all that good at it. Why else do strongman dictators keep getting into power? Before the whole WW2 and holocaust thing, Germans really laughed off Hitler. They believed they were too artsy, too cosmopolitan, and just too advanced for a dictator. So my guts tell me we're not great at judging real threats politically.
        abfan1127 3y ago
        I have no explicit evidence. I suspect its a combination of "head in the sand" and "I have no voice". In practical terms, you have no control over your country's future. Your vote is insignificant relative to the populace. So your next move is manage yourself and your families affairs and hope for the best. Frankly, the US's debt will crush it in the near future. How near is the question. There isn't much I can do about it. So, I put my head down and hope the fallout doesn't impact my family as much as others.
    - 3y ago
- lolinder 3y ago
  I found this document [0] which includes a bit more information about the audience and the structure of the handbook. The target audience is specifically engineers working for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It looks like the gaps are because they're progressively updating the handbook, so "Sections" are chapters that have yet to be updated and "Parts" are chapters that have been updated: > Many technical references are available to help NRCS engineers prepare conservation designs, e.g. industry design references, professional publications, academic textbooks, and market literature. NRCS design engineers with accumulated empirical experience have worked with academia, industry, and other government agencies to develop technical references and procedures that are specific to conservation work. This knowledge base is housed in the National Engineering Handbook Series, Technical Releases, and Technical Notes: > General Manual, Title 210 - Engineering, Parts 600-659 are grouped together to form the National Engineering Handbook (NEH) Series. These Parts can be found at http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ under the browser search column as “Handbooks - Title 210 Engineering.” > The filing system for National Engineering Handbook Series was updated in 1998. As a result, old NEH Sections are posted with the new NEH Parts. As the old NEH Sections are updated, they will be filed as Parts under the new NEH Series. [0] https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ND%20Summation%20of%20Eng%20Policy%20and%20Tech%20Ref-3-21-23.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ND%20S...
gustavus 3y ago
So I know there's going to be someone coming in to complain that Software Engineers aren't "real engineers" and we need "real engineering" and real "certifications" so we can be "real engineers" First off I love Jeff Atwood's take on it https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter. But I recently just passed my CISSP, had to for work, and it was one of the most obnoxious and pointless exercises I ever engaged. Most of the test involved questions about information that is hopelessly out of date, or incredibly pointless whose only value is for ivory tower PhDs to argue about in white papers whose only actual security experience is putting in their password to their laptop. I used to be sympathetic to an extent about the value of having a professional certifying body for software engineers, or something like that. Especially after having to debug JS by "full stack developers" who had just become "software engineers in 6 weeks". But after the CISSP racket I am enduring, I've realized a certfying body won't make software developers any more capable, it will only allow those who are the least qualified, to force arbitrary and capricious requirements onto people who actually care about the craft and are capble. /rant over.
- dudul 3y ago
  Is it the way it is for plumbers, electricians, physicians, lawyers, etc? I'm seriously asking and ready to accept a "yes", but the reality is a lot of other professions have certifications and controlling bodies. I wonder if, when being interviewed, plumbers have to jump through the same idiotic hoops developers have to suffer. My wife used to work as a nurse, her interviews were usually: do you have your certification paperwork? When can you start? No white boarding, no " tell me about a time you had to deal with a very difficult patient". Yeah yeah jobs are different but ffs, if I had a freaking paper to show that would save me 4 rounds of interviews I would be so happy. And yes, "innovation" may suffer. That's the usual argument, to which I say: good. I think we've reached a point in the history of technology where we need to chill out, take a deep breath and untangle the f ing mess we've created over the past decade.
  - lukas099 3y ago
    > if I had a freaking paper to show that would save me 4 rounds of interviews I would be so happy. That's if you already had the paper. You are discounting the cost of getting the paper in the first place.

145 points by minroot 3y ago

wolverine876 3y ago

Does anyone know what this publication is designed for and by whom, and why only certain chapters are published?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
teitoklien 3y ago
It’s part of the USDA Directives system which is the online repository of all USDA Departmental Regulations, Notices, Manuals, Guidebooks, etc. A lot of US departments, publish books like this. I’m a non-American, but i still often read books published by your government :D , they are certainly very cool. I wish our government had something like this. An interesting sidenote i wanted to mention the US Military also publishes books on various combat skills and guides on making defensive weapons for your public citizen to defend their communities incase of an invasion or government collapse[1]. I’ve come to realise that a good portion of your government sure as hell cares deeply about protecting your citizen’s right to defend themselves whether by carrying arms, or publishing books on guerilla tactics, and home making arms to protect oneself in the event of a crisis I get the right to carry arms is controversial in your country, It’s not allowed for common citizens here either unless they can prove a risk of life to themselves, but I always come across moments in history, where governments choose to genocide their own people [2] and it makes me think that maybe, what the american constitution creators thought of, which is now characterized as extreme civil liberty wasn’t a bad idea after all. People sometimes forget how unstable our freedoms truly are, and how often governments across history and in each country have betrayed their own people. - [1](https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S.+Military&s=relevancerank&text=Pentagon+U.S.+Military&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S...) - [2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide)
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Freedoms are also betrayed by other citizens, including those with guns. I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot.
  - abfan1127 3y ago
    The Cambodians weren't concerned either.
    - pdabbadabba 3y ago
      This seems plausible, but is this just a throwaway statement or is it supported by historical evidence? It's actually a pretty interesting question, that has never occurred to me until now, how well people have historically been able to judge the safety and stability of their own political situations. Perhaps there's some literature out there on this?
      - Loughla 3y ago
        I don't have references, but I don't think people are all that good at it. Why else do strongman dictators keep getting into power? Before the whole WW2 and holocaust thing, Germans really laughed off Hitler. They believed they were too artsy, too cosmopolitan, and just too advanced for a dictator. So my guts tell me we're not great at judging real threats politically.
      - abfan1127 3y ago
        I have no explicit evidence. I suspect its a combination of "head in the sand" and "I have no voice". In practical terms, you have no control over your country's future. Your vote is insignificant relative to the populace. So your next move is manage yourself and your families affairs and hope for the best. Frankly, the US's debt will crush it in the near future. How near is the question. There isn't much I can do about it. So, I put my head down and hope the fallout doesn't impact my family as much as others.
  - 3y ago
lolinder 3y ago
I found this document [0] which includes a bit more information about the audience and the structure of the handbook. The target audience is specifically engineers working for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It looks like the gaps are because they're progressively updating the handbook, so "Sections" are chapters that have yet to be updated and "Parts" are chapters that have been updated: > Many technical references are available to help NRCS engineers prepare conservation designs, e.g. industry design references, professional publications, academic textbooks, and market literature. NRCS design engineers with accumulated empirical experience have worked with academia, industry, and other government agencies to develop technical references and procedures that are specific to conservation work. This knowledge base is housed in the National Engineering Handbook Series, Technical Releases, and Technical Notes: > General Manual, Title 210 - Engineering, Parts 600-659 are grouped together to form the National Engineering Handbook (NEH) Series. These Parts can be found at http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/ under the browser search column as “Handbooks - Title 210 Engineering.” > The filing system for National Engineering Handbook Series was updated in 1998. As a result, old NEH Sections are posted with the new NEH Parts. As the old NEH Sections are updated, they will be filed as Parts under the new NEH Series. [0] https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ND%20Summation%20of%20Eng%20Policy%20and%20Tech%20Ref-3-21-23.pdf https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ND%20S...

gustavus 3y ago

So I know there's going to be someone coming in to complain that Software Engineers aren't "real engineers" and we need "real engineering" and real "certifications" so we can be "real engineers" First off I love Jeff Atwood's take on it https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter https://blog.codinghorror.com/do-certifications-matter. But I recently just passed my CISSP, had to for work, and it was one of the most obnoxious and pointless exercises I ever engaged. Most of the test involved questions about information that is hopelessly out of date, or incredibly pointless whose only value is for ivory tower PhDs to argue about in white papers whose only actual security experience is putting in their password to their laptop. I used to be sympathetic to an extent about the value of having a professional certifying body for software engineers, or something like that. Especially after having to debug JS by "full stack developers" who had just become "software engineers in 6 weeks". But after the CISSP racket I am enduring, I've realized a certfying body won't make software developers any more capable, it will only allow those who are the least qualified, to force arbitrary and capricious requirements onto people who actually care about the craft and are capble. /rant over.

dudul 3y ago
Is it the way it is for plumbers, electricians, physicians, lawyers, etc? I'm seriously asking and ready to accept a "yes", but the reality is a lot of other professions have certifications and controlling bodies. I wonder if, when being interviewed, plumbers have to jump through the same idiotic hoops developers have to suffer. My wife used to work as a nurse, her interviews were usually: do you have your certification paperwork? When can you start? No white boarding, no " tell me about a time you had to deal with a very difficult patient". Yeah yeah jobs are different but ffs, if I had a freaking paper to show that would save me 4 rounds of interviews I would be so happy. And yes, "innovation" may suffer. That's the usual argument, to which I say: good. I think we've reached a point in the history of technology where we need to chill out, take a deep breath and untangle the f ing mess we've created over the past decade.
- lukas099 3y ago
  > if I had a freaking paper to show that would save me 4 rounds of interviews I would be so happy. That's if you already had the paper. You are discounting the cost of getting the paper in the first place.