Professional engineers are required to consider the interests of the public in their work, have an obligation to reject unethical or harmful instructions and are regulated by their professional organization to support competency and address malpractice. Much of this was driven over the past 50-100 years as society determined that they wanted things built by engineers to not kill people or have material deficiencies following construction.
From my understanding, software engineers are a long away out from this still but perhaps we'll get there once the dust settles on more of these sorts of lawsuits.
The dust will never settle because once people try to regulate they can basically move software engineering in its whole somewhere else. Something great about being active in multiple places is the fact that these companies have leverage. There's not just a cost advantage to having amazon in luxembourg, just employ a few thousands (10 000 jobs are linked to amazon in luxembourg) and you can block votes in europe (because of veto power). 10K jobs is nothing for amazon but is 2% of all jobs in luxembourg.
Same way amazon being big in india isn't just great because of the vast talent pool and 'low' costs in India (even if many if most indian programmers are subpar, they got over a billion people), they basically ensure that the government in India can never turn against Amazon, because these jobs are concentrated in a specific region and India isn't a unified state. Amazon can try many getting into many different things in India without having the risk associated some small foreign company breaking into India would have.
> basically move software engineering in its whole somewhere else.
You don't think that is true in other professions? You don't think I could get my accounts done in India, or a bridge designed in China? The regulatory environment in my country would still apply. Your answer is just exceptionalism
Management not having to listen to engineers is the structural problem. How do managers know which concerns that engineers bring up are actually relevant? How do engineers know which concerns have real world consequences (without having a incredibly high burden of proof)?
Having regulation, or standardisation is a step toward producing a common language to express these problems and have them be taken seriously.
Leadership gets a strong signal - ignoring engineers surfacing regulated issues has large costs. Company might be sued and executives are criminally liable (if discovered to have known about the violation).
Engineering gets the authority and liability to sign off on things - the equivalent of “chartership” in regular fields with the same penalties. This gives them a strong personal reason to surface things.
It’s possible that this is harder for software engineering in its entirety, but there is definitely low hanging fruit (password storage and security etc).
> In the software industry management rarely ever listens to concerns brought up by engineering even if it's technical concerns.
Yet they have to listen to a Chartered Accountant or a Chartered Engineer. Maybe it would be as much in the engineers interest to have a professional body as it would for the public
Students tend to be fairly lazy, so this may simply mean another x% of the class reads the material rather than scanning in the 60 pages of reading for the assignment.
Australia has 6 weeks of leave at similar service levels, plus 11 public holidays. Turns out many countries have figured out how to not work themselves to death.
And this is why poor and ravaged Ukraine is the only country in Europe that is capable of bringing any real harm to Russians. They have learned how to be violent, for they had to. Rest of Europe didn't. And no, sending some special forces to kill few people in Iraq or Libia is not enough.
Feels like people on their deathbed are allowed to express their thoughts, trite/trivial or not. When you are literally dying the last thing on your mind should be whether some blogger deems your thoughts valuable or cheap.
May we all get to enjoy those final moments free of the need to perform on stage and express those things we truly wish to pass on to those will hear them.
>When you are literally dying the last thing on your mind should be whether some blogger deems your thoughts valuable or cheap.
to be fair when you're dying the other last thing on your mind should probably be your regrets, so there is some truth in the article.
When people go through dramatic events, not necessarily limited to their literal death, there's often a false sense of clarity. It's not uncommon for people with trauma or loss to suddenly have some conversion of one kind or the other, and it's rarely as good of an idea as they think it is. It seems more sincere because for the individual it's tied to some important event, but I think it's often the opposite.
I was tempted to respond with an offhand comment about the size of the industry or similar, but what axe do you have to grind about PC gaming? You'd prefer folks go to the far more injurious mobile gaming space?
From my understanding, software engineers are a long away out from this still but perhaps we'll get there once the dust settles on more of these sorts of lawsuits.
reply