3 ms·

> An engineer [] went to a credentialed school and passed a bunch of test and is allowed to sign documents that state "this thing, if built this way, won't coll

> An engineer [] went to a credentialed school and passed a bunch of test and is allowed to sign documents that state "this thing, if built this way, won't collapse and kill people." Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. Secondly, the implied cause and effect even within civil engineering is a fantasy. Signatures on documents by credentialed engineers doesn't prevent disasters as you noted: Bridges fall down, buildings burn. Read the engineering reports on civil engineering disasters, and look at the consequences for the engineers involved. You do some handwaving about organizational/process problems, but actually that is the key to safe engineering. Organisations deliver engineering projects and they do it across jurisdictional borders using insurance and liability and with a variety of other means that work: "signatures don't prevent disasters". Lockheed Martin's skunk-works and SpaceX are real engineering. Any good definition of engineering needs to encompass an extremely wide variety of activities. Engineering is compromise. I have no love for Musk but him saying build that actuator for less than $5k is actually true engineering: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39085892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39085892 I would like to know the psychology behind why people wish to believe credentialed signatures are so powerful? Maybe a cross between two concepts #1: "that individual engineers run the world" and #2: "that retributive punishment of individuals works as a deterrent". I think concept #1 comes from the egotist idea of most engineer-types that we are the center of everything (I need a whole article to explain the concept). I think concept #2 is related to beliefs about the value of incarceration and also punishment beliefs derived from religion (especially in the USA where prisons are not fixing problems?). Edit: issue #3: the idea that we should make rules about what words mean. It takes a certain worldview to think words should be defined rather than evolve (or worse that words should be part of a justice system)

cduzz 3y ago
> Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. I suppose you've got an engineering degree in pedantic engineering? Engineers manage cost and risk. The skunk-works stuff is marginally "science" not "engineering" given the relatively large budgets and relative lack of "we know this works." Cern is similarly an enormous engineering enterprise in that it's a huge stack of "we know this works" in service of "we're not sure what this will do" A discussion of how "software engineers" deliver projects with neither cost or risk as part of the process implies, to me, that they're not engineers.
- robocat 3y ago
  You are the one trying to push your definition of engineering. I provided counter-examples that show engineering encompasses a lot more than your definition. I simply don't understand why anyone thinks writing software is somehow uniquely not "real" engineering. Somehow we are indoctrinated to believe that it isn't but all the evidence seems to show software engineering is a valid description. I have no lack of experience watching the fuck-ups made by electronics engineers, or the fuck-ups made by mechanical engineers. You appear to want to define engineering only as certified civil engineering. And I've seen enough of their fuck-ups too, with signatures. In fact I'll ask my bridge engineer friend from uni about it! Unfortunately my bridge building grandad is dead so I can't ask him.
  - cduzz 3y ago
    The vast majority of people I encounter with some "engineering" title, in software (or the related "Architect") are in fact not trained as engineers or architects, in any field. A site reliability "engineer" or a software "engineer" is not an actual engineer just because they've got that in their title or job description. If I were to hire a "chemical engineer" position and instead hired a chemist, or a mechanic, or a rando who's cooked meth, I may end up with things working okay, or I might end up with a serious mess, even if those people I hire call themselves "engineers" (but in fact have no formal training as such). I'm not sure to what degree credentials matter, but do credentials matter more than "not a god damned bit" ? I'm not saying the title makes you "not an idiot" -- people gonna people -- but attention to "cost" and "risk" is (theoretically) one of the distinguishing characteristics of engineering training vs ... "mather" or "programmer" or "philosopher".
    - robocat 3y ago
      Yeah, the debasement of meaning is annoying - vice-president is one I hate. Another one that surprises me from the US is "licensed nail technician". I have a bachelor of engineering title I can use with my name, but that is another distinct type of bullshit. In New Zealand one relevant legal certification is CPEng which you can apply for after receiving your degree and working for a few years: https://www.engineeringnz.org/join-us/cpeng/ https://www.engineeringnz.org/join-us/cpeng/ And apparently our government agreed in 2022 to introduce a new licensing regime for engineers doing safety-critical work. But in an international world, how relevant are certified individuals? When I purchase a stove from a US brand and it catches fire, there needs to be other liability/retribution/corrective systems to deal with the problem. It matters little to me who signed off on the product in the US. Can I import custom structural steel beams? How many New Zealanders have signed off on this steel construction: https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/future-projects/major-facilities/canterbury-arena/project-overview https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/future-projects/major-facili... We need a new stadium because the last one broke. Unfortunately it wasn't insured due to some cockup at the city council (which I suspect had zero retribution on the people that cocked up - I wonder if they signed bits of paper?). Over-credentialisation is a problem too - where is the right balance? The shift to everyone needing credentials is fucked. My friends (nurses, teachers) literally weep at the absolute trash they have to "learn" for their credential. I also vividly remember the crap I needed to disgorge to get my degree. I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly believe most credentials are pointless waste and adding more credentials is not actually effective. Neither do I believe that that the anarchy of libertarian free markets are a workable answer.

cduzz 3y ago

> Ahhh - that old craptacular definition. You completely ignore mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, electrical & electronics engineers. Not all engineers make bridges. I suppose you've got an engineering degree in pedantic engineering? Engineers manage cost and risk. The skunk-works stuff is marginally "science" not "engineering" given the relatively large budgets and relative lack of "we know this works." Cern is similarly an enormous engineering enterprise in that it's a huge stack of "we know this works" in service of "we're not sure what this will do" A discussion of how "software engineers" deliver projects with neither cost or risk as part of the process implies, to me, that they're not engineers.

robocat 3y ago
You are the one trying to push your definition of engineering. I provided counter-examples that show engineering encompasses a lot more than your definition. I simply don't understand why anyone thinks writing software is somehow uniquely not "real" engineering. Somehow we are indoctrinated to believe that it isn't but all the evidence seems to show software engineering is a valid description. I have no lack of experience watching the fuck-ups made by electronics engineers, or the fuck-ups made by mechanical engineers. You appear to want to define engineering only as certified civil engineering. And I've seen enough of their fuck-ups too, with signatures. In fact I'll ask my bridge engineer friend from uni about it! Unfortunately my bridge building grandad is dead so I can't ask him.
- cduzz 3y ago
  The vast majority of people I encounter with some "engineering" title, in software (or the related "Architect") are in fact not trained as engineers or architects, in any field. A site reliability "engineer" or a software "engineer" is not an actual engineer just because they've got that in their title or job description. If I were to hire a "chemical engineer" position and instead hired a chemist, or a mechanic, or a rando who's cooked meth, I may end up with things working okay, or I might end up with a serious mess, even if those people I hire call themselves "engineers" (but in fact have no formal training as such). I'm not sure to what degree credentials matter, but do credentials matter more than "not a god damned bit" ? I'm not saying the title makes you "not an idiot" -- people gonna people -- but attention to "cost" and "risk" is (theoretically) one of the distinguishing characteristics of engineering training vs ... "mather" or "programmer" or "philosopher".
  - robocat 3y ago
    Yeah, the debasement of meaning is annoying - vice-president is one I hate. Another one that surprises me from the US is "licensed nail technician". I have a bachelor of engineering title I can use with my name, but that is another distinct type of bullshit. In New Zealand one relevant legal certification is CPEng which you can apply for after receiving your degree and working for a few years: https://www.engineeringnz.org/join-us/cpeng/ https://www.engineeringnz.org/join-us/cpeng/ And apparently our government agreed in 2022 to introduce a new licensing regime for engineers doing safety-critical work. But in an international world, how relevant are certified individuals? When I purchase a stove from a US brand and it catches fire, there needs to be other liability/retribution/corrective systems to deal with the problem. It matters little to me who signed off on the product in the US. Can I import custom structural steel beams? How many New Zealanders have signed off on this steel construction: https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/future-projects/major-facilities/canterbury-arena/project-overview https://ccc.govt.nz/the-council/future-projects/major-facili... We need a new stadium because the last one broke. Unfortunately it wasn't insured due to some cockup at the city council (which I suspect had zero retribution on the people that cocked up - I wonder if they signed bits of paper?). Over-credentialisation is a problem too - where is the right balance? The shift to everyone needing credentials is fucked. My friends (nurses, teachers) literally weep at the absolute trash they have to "learn" for their credential. I also vividly remember the crap I needed to disgorge to get my degree. I don't know what the answer is, but I honestly believe most credentials are pointless waste and adding more credentials is not actually effective. Neither do I believe that that the anarchy of libertarian free markets are a workable answer.