As a software engineer, the thought of my code being responsible for someone’s safety is fucking terrifying. Thankfully I’m not in that kind of position.
From experience though, I can tell you that most of the reasons software is shitty is because of middle or upper management, either forcing idiotic business requirements (like a subscription where it doesn’t fucking belong!) or just not allocating time to button things up. I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.
Licensing would be overkill for most software as it’s not usually life and death. I think in this case since it’s safety equipment it really should have been rejected by NHTSA before it ever hit stores.
I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.
As a software engineer who was also a civil engineer-in-training before switching careers, I think one of the big overlooked benefits of being licensed is that it would give engineers leverage to push back on unethical demands by management.
Dear manager please clarify the specifications for product. From the discussions in the last design meeting i felt the specifications to potentially be ambigious about their compliance with critical safety regulation. Please reply with the clarified specifications.
I don’t think you understand what being licensed means. It means the state requires that people doing that job hold a license. Offshoring would become illegal.
I just don’t see how it would help. It would require legally defining what is or isn’t an unethical or unsafe software product, in which case why wouldn’t you just… regulate the product.
That’s easy with civil engineering: did the thing collapse and kill people? You dun fucked up. But bridges and buildings and tunnels don’t have EULAs with liability disclaimers.
Anyone who paid for this piece of shit vest almost certainly had to accept some sort of license agreement that disclaims any liability on behalf of the manufacturer. It’s a safety supplement meant to reduce the risk of a fatal injury, not prevent them altogether.
You’d also end up with a situation where an overseas team develops the software and you just have a licensed engineer on retainer to rubber-stamp it. It’d probably kill what little domestic software development we have left, because however much time and money it costs to get licensed will jack up everyone’s salary requirements that gets licensed.
It would also mean heavy restrictions on the import of any software, which pretty much fucks… everyone. It’d likely kill the Internet or make it even shittier, because you could only visit websites developed by a licensed engineer. Every website visit requires the downloading of software: the Javascript frontend.
It would also effectively kill open-source, because the legal liability would override the warranty disclaimer in every single open source license. Why would you put something out into the world for free if all it would do is open you up to litigation?
Could a well written law take this all into account? Certainly. Would you realistically expect it to, though? I don’t think so.
As a software engineer, the thought of my code being responsible for someone’s safety is fucking terrifying. Thankfully I’m not in that kind of position.
From experience though, I can tell you that most of the reasons software is shitty is because of middle or upper management, either forcing idiotic business requirements (like a subscription where it doesn’t fucking belong!) or just not allocating time to button things up. I can guarantee that every engineer that worked on that thing hated it and thought it was fucking stupid.
Licensing would be overkill for most software as it’s not usually life and death. I think in this case since it’s safety equipment it really should have been rejected by NHTSA before it ever hit stores.
As a software engineer who was also a civil engineer-in-training before switching careers, I think one of the big overlooked benefits of being licensed is that it would give engineers leverage to push back on unethical demands by management.
[email protected]
Dear manager please clarify the specifications for product. From the discussions in the last design meeting i felt the specifications to potentially be ambigious about their compliance with critical safety regulation. Please reply with the clarified specifications.
Management can always just fire the engineering team and hire one overseas. It’s not like it’s even that difficult to do.
I don’t think you understand what being licensed means. It means the state requires that people doing that job hold a license. Offshoring would become illegal.
I just don’t see how it would help. It would require legally defining what is or isn’t an unethical or unsafe software product, in which case why wouldn’t you just… regulate the product.
That’s easy with civil engineering: did the thing collapse and kill people? You dun fucked up. But bridges and buildings and tunnels don’t have EULAs with liability disclaimers.
Anyone who paid for this piece of shit vest almost certainly had to accept some sort of license agreement that disclaims any liability on behalf of the manufacturer. It’s a safety supplement meant to reduce the risk of a fatal injury, not prevent them altogether.
You’d also end up with a situation where an overseas team develops the software and you just have a licensed engineer on retainer to rubber-stamp it. It’d probably kill what little domestic software development we have left, because however much time and money it costs to get licensed will jack up everyone’s salary requirements that gets licensed.
It would also mean heavy restrictions on the import of any software, which pretty much fucks… everyone. It’d likely kill the Internet or make it even shittier, because you could only visit websites developed by a licensed engineer. Every website visit requires the downloading of software: the Javascript frontend.
It would also effectively kill open-source, because the legal liability would override the warranty disclaimer in every single open source license. Why would you put something out into the world for free if all it would do is open you up to litigation?
Could a well written law take this all into account? Certainly. Would you realistically expect it to, though? I don’t think so.