North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering(ij.org)
ij.org
North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about engineering
https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-board-tells-retired-engineer-he-cant-talk-about-engineering/
406 comments
This is why the letter of the law is so important, paradoxically. It is never good to have unreasonable/archaic laws in the book and have law enforcement look the other way. Since almost everyone ends up breaking them, it allows law enforcement to basically charge any selected person. Such laws should be struck off the book. I believe in Latin, this is called Lex malla, lex nulla - roughly translates to "No law is better than bad law".
This is literally MO of every totalitarian government - make it impossible to not be a law breaker, so we can arrest you at anytime.
I don't think that's necessarily true. This is a trick for working around the rule of law, but totalitarian governments don't need that subtlety. They have dummy courts and full control over what's legal. To take the most extreme example, Nazis didn't pass harsh jaywalking laws and then use them on Jews; they actively made laws against Jews.
Even the most tyranical regimes can not blatantly declare the ruler god-emperor like Egyptian Pharoes, that just wouldn't fly - they keep up the appearences one way or the other.
Soviet Union still felt the need to hold elections and have laws, China officials were removed using charges of corruption, etc.
Soviet Union still felt the need to hold elections and have laws, China officials were removed using charges of corruption, etc.
"To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law."
-- Óscar Benavides
-- Óscar Benavides
Correct would be lex mala, lex nulla (omit one L).
This is weird. Even I can see that it seems to say nothing but:
Bad law, no law.
Does latin have an implied ‘better than’ in sequences?
Bad law, no law.
Does latin have an implied ‘better than’ in sequences?
What's implied here is 'is', i.e. "a bad law is no law."
The phrase seems to be a rehash of a quote from St Augustine: "lex iniusta non est lex" meaning "an injust law is not a law", which is more clear.
The phrase seems to be a rehash of a quote from St Augustine: "lex iniusta non est lex" meaning "an injust law is not a law", which is more clear.
You can make a legal argument that an archaic law suddenly being punitively enforced is a dead letter.
The uk has a lot of these when it comes to speech and there are some fantastic examples
I agree. GDPR doesn't explicitly state that companies above certain size are exempt for many nuances of compliance or the 'little guy' gets a pass. Yet, almost all small companies ignore full GDPR compliance. Just because no one cares/sues small companies, doesn't mean that they're immune - the letter of the law and its enforcement should be absolute so that shitty laws don't pass the mustard.
> Next interesting point. Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?
Regardless of whether it is, you can really tell the hypocrisy. Medicine is a vastly more protected profession than engineer. The article states about 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. That would be unthinkable for any form of medical work.
And yet, there are vastly more people giving out medical advice without a license, and even performing all kinds of quack procedures like faith healing as replacement for medical science.
Some retired engineer talking about his profession while technically not having a license is an absolutely minuscule problem, if it even is one, compared to the reprehensible alternative medicine industry.
Regardless of whether it is, you can really tell the hypocrisy. Medicine is a vastly more protected profession than engineer. The article states about 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. That would be unthinkable for any form of medical work.
And yet, there are vastly more people giving out medical advice without a license, and even performing all kinds of quack procedures like faith healing as replacement for medical science.
Some retired engineer talking about his profession while technically not having a license is an absolutely minuscule problem, if it even is one, compared to the reprehensible alternative medicine industry.
>Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?
For many (most?) states, this is a determination spelled out broadly by law, and left up to the licensing board itself to implement, interpret, administer, and enforce.
So the answer, in those states, is:
"Practicing engineering is whatever the state licensing board says it is."
For many (most?) states, this is a determination spelled out broadly by law, and left up to the licensing board itself to implement, interpret, administer, and enforce.
So the answer, in those states, is:
"Practicing engineering is whatever the state licensing board says it is."
> It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without
> issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking.
> Such that if a citizen can demonstrate selective enforcement he can also be absolved of the same crimes that the rest of the population is absolved of?
A judge in London gave a convicted drug user a conditional discharge following the former Lord Chancellor admitting to using the same drug. Not a precedent-setting case, however.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/judge-tells-cocaine-user-...
A judge in London gave a convicted drug user a conditional discharge following the former Lord Chancellor admitting to using the same drug. Not a precedent-setting case, however.
https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/06/judge-tells-cocaine-user-...
Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me.
The term "jaywalking" is intentional slander of pedestrians popularized by car manufacturing companies who were hell-bent on subjugating American cities to the automobile.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[3] (Not Just Bikes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[3] (Not Just Bikes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
> Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me.
It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530
Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver) or you'll have to lower speed limits, which would make longer-distance travel more inefficient and inconvenient.
It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530
Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver) or you'll have to lower speed limits, which would make longer-distance travel more inefficient and inconvenient.
> e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver
I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.
The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.
I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.
The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.
> I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.
It's not a perverse value system, it's acknowledging reality. Cars aren't going away anytime soon, because they provide real benefits. In a world with cars, pedestrians can't act like they did when cars didn't exist, laws or no.
No diver (with some homicidal exceptions) wants to hit a pedestrian, just like no pedestrian (with some suicidal exceptions) wants to get hit by a car. To minimize those kinds of events, both groups need to act in certain ways (with added motivation provided by penalties); it's objectively inferior to try to concentrate responsibly only on one group or the other.
> The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on a green light (in my city, there'd be a "don't walk" light in that case).
> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city streets.
Maybe in a dense city or a residential neighborhood (where I live streets with unposted limits are 25mph, which covers almost all residential streets), but it's a fact that other areas were built with arterial roads that need traffic to flow much faster.
It's not a perverse value system, it's acknowledging reality. Cars aren't going away anytime soon, because they provide real benefits. In a world with cars, pedestrians can't act like they did when cars didn't exist, laws or no.
No diver (with some homicidal exceptions) wants to hit a pedestrian, just like no pedestrian (with some suicidal exceptions) wants to get hit by a car. To minimize those kinds of events, both groups need to act in certain ways (with added motivation provided by penalties); it's objectively inferior to try to concentrate responsibly only on one group or the other.
> The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on a green light (in my city, there'd be a "don't walk" light in that case).
> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city streets.
Maybe in a dense city or a residential neighborhood (where I live streets with unposted limits are 25mph, which covers almost all residential streets), but it's a fact that other areas were built with arterial roads that need traffic to flow much faster.
[deleted]
> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.
Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?
Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?
Not GP but I live in Philly, a very dense walkable city. It is absolutely reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph on most of our streets. Especially in residential neighborhoods, but honestly ideally pretty much everywhere in Center City and a good distance away from there too.
EDIT: And in fact most of the residential streets here are 25 mph, and I think only that high because it's the minimum posted speed limit in the state of Pennsylvania. (I'd like to see that lowered personally, and more importantly some traffic calming that's actually effective.)
EDIT: And in fact most of the residential streets here are 25 mph, and I think only that high because it's the minimum posted speed limit in the state of Pennsylvania. (I'd like to see that lowered personally, and more importantly some traffic calming that's actually effective.)
The UK has 20 mph limits in many residential areas, and they are often quite popular with (most) locals, who specifically ask for them.
In New Orleans unless otherwise marked, streets with a neutral ground (median) are 35mph and without are 25mph. I'm usually pretty happy with that arrangement as both a motorist and pedestrian.
The default speed limit throughout all of Manhattan is 25 mph.
91% of the streets in Portland have a speed limit of 30 mph or less.
[deleted]
How is it required? In Sweden jaywalking as a crime does not exist and vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the street.
The problems you describe seem absent from my experience living all my life in Sweden's second largest city with plenty of pedestrians and motor vehicles crossing the same streets.
The problems you describe seem absent from my experience living all my life in Sweden's second largest city with plenty of pedestrians and motor vehicles crossing the same streets.
I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.
> I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.
Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding.
Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.
Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding.
Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.
In New York city in recent years it was found that most jay walking tickets were handed out to minorities. Either white people are more intrinsically motivated or jay walking laws aren't the primary or even a substantial factor in pedestrian accidents.
Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?
Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?
It also determines who is in the wrong. Cars normally have to yield to pedestrians and are usually presumed at fault if they hit one. The fine is just an extension of formalizing who has the right of way.
"Distracted walking" is pretty well discredited as a deadly scourge to society. Also, walking is travel, and restricting walking already makes travel more inefficient and inconvenient. So I'm gonna go with lowering speed limits.
A country without a general speed limit, and home to a couple of companies manufacturing fast cars, begs to differ. But then getting a driver's license here takes real education and practice.
Just a note for those unfamiliar with the concept of dead posts: To read that post you need to enable "showdead" or something with a similar name in your profile page.
There is a bill (AB 1238) in the California Legislature that will legalize jaywalking: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.
It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.
Abolish, not legalize. "Jaywalking" is a made up crime invented by car companies to project jaydrivers.
It makes some sense that you want to have pedestrians crossing as fast as possible.
It's not an offense in my country. It is also not a term you learn in school. So when I was in the US for the first time, and had a policeman shouting "No Jaywalking", I had no idea what he meant.
It's not an offense in my country. It is also not a term you learn in school. So when I was in the US for the first time, and had a policeman shouting "No Jaywalking", I had no idea what he meant.
I find the handing over of personal responsibility for my safety to be alarming.
If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross.
If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light.
I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.
If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross.
If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light.
I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.
Regarding the angry looks with kids around, they aren’t able to judge the speed, distance or even direction (of sound) of an approaching car nearly as well as us before the age of 8 or 10.
So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)
So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)
The other points are fine, but a 3 or 4-year old does not understand nuance or personal responsibility. I think that in general German society encourages a strong sense of personality responsibility as part of developing healthy children and adults, so kind of a weird thing to pick on.
Personally I jaywalk when it's safe and no kids are around.
Personally I jaywalk when it's safe and no kids are around.
Is it jaywalking when you're not stepping in front of a car?
When I hear the word, I tend to think of people who take for granted that a car will stop for them and probably even conspicuously turn away from it.
I don't think of it as meaning "crossing the street where there is no marked crosswalk" absent traffic, or "crossing the street at an intersection" even if there is no marking and someone who wants to make a turn.
When I hear the word, I tend to think of people who take for granted that a car will stop for them and probably even conspicuously turn away from it.
I don't think of it as meaning "crossing the street where there is no marked crosswalk" absent traffic, or "crossing the street at an intersection" even if there is no marking and someone who wants to make a turn.
Ignoring the ford conspiracies how exactly should jaywalking be treated then? It's both a danger to the drivers and the people.
We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died.
Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street is far too much for a first offense (but perhaps for a habitual jaywalker it makes sense). Hell, I'm guilty of doing it a lot in my exurb area. However, when I do it it's because there's 2 miles between posted crosswalks and I make sure I can cross safely before trying. There aren't enough crosswalks - certainly.
Jaywalking laws create important predictability. I can assume that the average civilian is deterred by jaywalking law enough to not randomly step out onto the street at will. This means I can anticipate them only at crosswalks and intersections. You're already busy dodging drivers distracted with doing anything but driving (makeup, listening to podcasts, eating, reading a book, etc). If we didn't have these laws the risk to driving would be much higher. Many people think humans stand no chance against cars, but one errant jaywalker going through a car window can kill everyone in the vehicle given sufficient enough velocity. It's important to remember a 45 mph impact on a ~125-200 pound human carries with it tremendous momentum. Assuming they don't go through the car window, that same flying body can do lethal damage to law abiding people walking on the sidewalks.
The UK doesn't have jaywalking laws. I understand that. But the UK is far more "walkable". The US is by-and-large not. Especially as you get into "normal" towns and not major metros like LA and NYC. I would be willing to agree jaywalking laws need to be done away with if the US was more walkable.
We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died.
Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street is far too much for a first offense (but perhaps for a habitual jaywalker it makes sense). Hell, I'm guilty of doing it a lot in my exurb area. However, when I do it it's because there's 2 miles between posted crosswalks and I make sure I can cross safely before trying. There aren't enough crosswalks - certainly.
Jaywalking laws create important predictability. I can assume that the average civilian is deterred by jaywalking law enough to not randomly step out onto the street at will. This means I can anticipate them only at crosswalks and intersections. You're already busy dodging drivers distracted with doing anything but driving (makeup, listening to podcasts, eating, reading a book, etc). If we didn't have these laws the risk to driving would be much higher. Many people think humans stand no chance against cars, but one errant jaywalker going through a car window can kill everyone in the vehicle given sufficient enough velocity. It's important to remember a 45 mph impact on a ~125-200 pound human carries with it tremendous momentum. Assuming they don't go through the car window, that same flying body can do lethal damage to law abiding people walking on the sidewalks.
The UK doesn't have jaywalking laws. I understand that. But the UK is far more "walkable". The US is by-and-large not. Especially as you get into "normal" towns and not major metros like LA and NYC. I would be willing to agree jaywalking laws need to be done away with if the US was more walkable.
Alternatively we could amend jaywalking to only be an offense if the act directly impedes drivers. That is, always legal to cross when safe. It more reflects the spirit of the law, eliminates bad (cop) behavior, and still allows fining bad pedestrian behavior. It’s how cars are regulated after all — you can turn through a cross walk with it’s walk sign on as long as there’s no pedestrians. So maybe right if way yielding lawns would work equally well for pedestrians and cars.
Why not have drivers stop for pedestrians? In many US states pedestrians have right of way at the end of each block, why not in the middle too? Remember all drivers are also pedestrians
CA has the right approach here. Jaywalking is defined as crossing a street with two light controlled intersections outside of the crosswalk, or when it is not your turn. You can legally enter the crosswalk when the light is flashing if you make it across in time. And for streets without intersections controlled by lights jaywalking just doesn't apply. People manage to not walk across highways or other dangerous areas for reasons other than a jaywalking ticket.
[deleted]
I wonder if someone could get arrested for jaywalking across a street that bordered two states. Then get out of it because the state was interfering with interstate commerce.
Particularly in advertising providing medical advice and what can be said is highly regulated.
For good reason too. Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted may have caused some real harm. It would seem reasonable to remove a doctor's license to practice medicine for giving such advice.
Of course broad scale communication is different than specific testimony in court, especially from a seasoned practitioner.
For good reason too. Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted may have caused some real harm. It would seem reasonable to remove a doctor's license to practice medicine for giving such advice.
Of course broad scale communication is different than specific testimony in court, especially from a seasoned practitioner.
I'm probably in the minority with this, but I think all licensing laws should be abolished. Even with cases like the one you describe, other mechanisms could be used to handle the problem and those individuals likely at are risk for doing things on their own anyway.
I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
The past year is full of examples of the dangers of regulating speech by government in the name of medical safety. The FDA decision on the antibody treatment for Alzheimer's provides a converse example, of how expertise can be foolish.
I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
The past year is full of examples of the dangers of regulating speech by government in the name of medical safety. The FDA decision on the antibody treatment for Alzheimer's provides a converse example, of how expertise can be foolish.
> I'm probably in the minority with this, but I think all licensing laws should be abolished. Even with cases like the one you describe, other mechanisms could be used to handle the problem and those individuals likely at are risk for doing things on their own anyway.
> I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
The obvious problem with that is that it won't work: people harmed by some rando who decided to play doctor may not have the resources to sue, or may turn to some other incompetent rando lawyer who will lose their case. It would also likely to be hard to get a (now even more overworked) DA to take up such a case as a criminal prosecution unless there was a death or grievous bodily harm involved.
A lot of libertarian solutions seem to want to replace a workable but imperfect systems with unworkable awkward alternatives.
> I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
The obvious problem with that is that it won't work: people harmed by some rando who decided to play doctor may not have the resources to sue, or may turn to some other incompetent rando lawyer who will lose their case. It would also likely to be hard to get a (now even more overworked) DA to take up such a case as a criminal prosecution unless there was a death or grievous bodily harm involved.
A lot of libertarian solutions seem to want to replace a workable but imperfect systems with unworkable awkward alternatives.
[deleted]
"I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit."
Defense: The patient was already ill. Can the opposition prove that the prescription of bleach, specifically, caused the harm, in the face of the patient's underlying disease? The risks of the treatment were adequately explained to the patient, as indicated by the patient's signature on this form. The patient voluntarily accepted those risks.
Bottom line: the patient is dead, and civil or criminal liability ain't going to bring 'em back.
Defense: The patient was already ill. Can the opposition prove that the prescription of bleach, specifically, caused the harm, in the face of the patient's underlying disease? The risks of the treatment were adequately explained to the patient, as indicated by the patient's signature on this form. The patient voluntarily accepted those risks.
Bottom line: the patient is dead, and civil or criminal liability ain't going to bring 'em back.
> I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
So if someone posts an article on Faceboot about the benefits of injecting bleach, and their friend does it, then they get criminally charged? How about our comments right here for mentioning it and thereby validating it as something to consider doing?
One of the aspects of licensing is making it so that certain people's opinions can be considered trusted, with corresponding liability. Your suggestions would seem to create more restrictions on speech, rather than less.
I'm sympathetic to the goal of making licensing more fine grained, but there would have to be a lot more competition and dynamicness on the part of those requiring most licenses (eg planning boards) for this to possibly make sense.
So if someone posts an article on Faceboot about the benefits of injecting bleach, and their friend does it, then they get criminally charged? How about our comments right here for mentioning it and thereby validating it as something to consider doing?
One of the aspects of licensing is making it so that certain people's opinions can be considered trusted, with corresponding liability. Your suggestions would seem to create more restrictions on speech, rather than less.
I'm sympathetic to the goal of making licensing more fine grained, but there would have to be a lot more competition and dynamicness on the part of those requiring most licenses (eg planning boards) for this to possibly make sense.
I honestly hope for a framework of credibility, where people vouch for others' competence on a subject. Not just for licensed/protected topics but for just about anything. You know, like those LinkedIn appraisals (yes, they suck but they're just reflection of the society). That ages old "web of trust" idea.
Something without any "mandatory" trusted anchors and no censorship. One must be freely able to put any trust links they believe they want to do, as well as decide for themselves if they trust some established institutions or believe everything is a hoax and decide to trust someone else, say a person or organization we may call a charlatan. Basically, anyone should be able to make any calculations on that graph as they see fit, and use those results for themselves. Just like it already happens.
It obviously would be incredibly broken and plagued with all sort of issues, but it would reflect the society. And I'm not sure how it can be made viable - no web of trust except for the original one (the society itself) had ever worked. It probably need some modern fads - be it dancing pigs like Facebook did for their graph, or potential profits of cryptocurrencies, I honestly don't know. And I readily recognize it could lead to privacy problems, especially given the current trend of radical ostracization upon any slightest disagreement.
But if it somehow works (it probably won't, sadly) it could be the ultimate solution to licensing boards, fake news, propaganda and many other kinds of memetic storms.
But surely, society can't remove licensing requirements before there's a viable alternative.
Just a random thought.
Something without any "mandatory" trusted anchors and no censorship. One must be freely able to put any trust links they believe they want to do, as well as decide for themselves if they trust some established institutions or believe everything is a hoax and decide to trust someone else, say a person or organization we may call a charlatan. Basically, anyone should be able to make any calculations on that graph as they see fit, and use those results for themselves. Just like it already happens.
It obviously would be incredibly broken and plagued with all sort of issues, but it would reflect the society. And I'm not sure how it can be made viable - no web of trust except for the original one (the society itself) had ever worked. It probably need some modern fads - be it dancing pigs like Facebook did for their graph, or potential profits of cryptocurrencies, I honestly don't know. And I readily recognize it could lead to privacy problems, especially given the current trend of radical ostracization upon any slightest disagreement.
But if it somehow works (it probably won't, sadly) it could be the ultimate solution to licensing boards, fake news, propaganda and many other kinds of memetic storms.
But surely, society can't remove licensing requirements before there's a viable alternative.
Just a random thought.
How difficult would it be, do you think, to establish a web-of-trust for those advocating the dangers of vaccines? How large would that web of trust be, and how many people would fall prey to it?
Bad money drives out good. Bad speech drives out good, too.
Bad money drives out good. Bad speech drives out good, too.
> Bad speech drives out good, too.
Ah, right. I think I got it now. That's where the issue is.
It could be that this web of trust just cannot work unless it covers most of the world. If it would, I believe it would be just a technical aid, a machine-coded representation of an already established "organic" web of trust.
But it must start from zero, and it cannot grow as it would be lethally poisoned, becoming a place composed mostly of controversial vouches. Could be very true. I need to think about this.
One immediate thought is that even a graph of only the "bad voices" (for arbitrary definition of bad) can be perfectly useful, as a sort of noise ("fake news", "lunacy", "bullshit" - however we want to call it) filter. It's not that a web of trust spreads opinions, it spreads relations to their opinions. And a signal that someone vouches directly or indirectly (although "vouching" is not a good term for this case) can be perceived arbitrarily. So maybe it's not that bad. It may be bad by reinforcing echo chambers, but it could also be good in pointing out the connections, those bridges between the factions where arguing is not moot.
Ah, right. I think I got it now. That's where the issue is.
It could be that this web of trust just cannot work unless it covers most of the world. If it would, I believe it would be just a technical aid, a machine-coded representation of an already established "organic" web of trust.
But it must start from zero, and it cannot grow as it would be lethally poisoned, becoming a place composed mostly of controversial vouches. Could be very true. I need to think about this.
One immediate thought is that even a graph of only the "bad voices" (for arbitrary definition of bad) can be perfectly useful, as a sort of noise ("fake news", "lunacy", "bullshit" - however we want to call it) filter. It's not that a web of trust spreads opinions, it spreads relations to their opinions. And a signal that someone vouches directly or indirectly (although "vouching" is not a good term for this case) can be perceived arbitrarily. So maybe it's not that bad. It may be bad by reinforcing echo chambers, but it could also be good in pointing out the connections, those bridges between the factions where arguing is not moot.
> and how many people would fall prey to it?
How exactly? I could be wrong, but I believe it won't make things any worse. I see three scenarios:
First, let's say someone is an antivaxer, already subscribed to that belief. If they're reading some posting, the fact that some other antivaxer vouched for that post's author doesn't change much.
If someone had not made any opinion yet - they won't have any trust connections on that matter, so if they're reading an anti-vaccine posting, they won't have any impact. Their query to the web of trust would say "no idea, you don't have any trust anchors set on this matter, go figure out whom you trust first".
It is only if they have a friend they trust on the subject vaccines, and that friend happens to be an antivaxer, they may have a "your friend vouches for this" result. This is the only scenario I see, where someone could be swayed towards a certain opinion, and I'd be damned if this doesn't already happens without any technologies, completely organically. It's their peer group that sways them, so the technology in question here doesn't make it worse or better, it just accelerates the process.
Again, I could be wrong about either or all of those. I readily recognize all of this stems from my beliefs in humanity (in general) as something that can work out its way through any amount of dissenting opinions, finding out the truths. I mean, historically, society had worked this way. And a controversial belief that accelerating this is a good idea - I admit, I don't have a rational arguments for or against this part - it's just a belief. Guess it comes from hatred of seeing all those slow simmering almost-pertpetual memetic wars and being unhappy about their fallout, yet not believing any forcible silencing of opposing forces is a viable approach.
Oh, and just to clarify: it's extremely important that trust must not be ultimate (exceptions apply for closest peers, e.g. partners or parents), but limited to a subject. E.g. I may trust someone on subject X but at the same time know they're avid subscribers to what I think is a false belief on subject Y, so I explicitly distrust them on that matter.
How exactly? I could be wrong, but I believe it won't make things any worse. I see three scenarios:
First, let's say someone is an antivaxer, already subscribed to that belief. If they're reading some posting, the fact that some other antivaxer vouched for that post's author doesn't change much.
If someone had not made any opinion yet - they won't have any trust connections on that matter, so if they're reading an anti-vaccine posting, they won't have any impact. Their query to the web of trust would say "no idea, you don't have any trust anchors set on this matter, go figure out whom you trust first".
It is only if they have a friend they trust on the subject vaccines, and that friend happens to be an antivaxer, they may have a "your friend vouches for this" result. This is the only scenario I see, where someone could be swayed towards a certain opinion, and I'd be damned if this doesn't already happens without any technologies, completely organically. It's their peer group that sways them, so the technology in question here doesn't make it worse or better, it just accelerates the process.
Again, I could be wrong about either or all of those. I readily recognize all of this stems from my beliefs in humanity (in general) as something that can work out its way through any amount of dissenting opinions, finding out the truths. I mean, historically, society had worked this way. And a controversial belief that accelerating this is a good idea - I admit, I don't have a rational arguments for or against this part - it's just a belief. Guess it comes from hatred of seeing all those slow simmering almost-pertpetual memetic wars and being unhappy about their fallout, yet not believing any forcible silencing of opposing forces is a viable approach.
Oh, and just to clarify: it's extremely important that trust must not be ultimate (exceptions apply for closest peers, e.g. partners or parents), but limited to a subject. E.g. I may trust someone on subject X but at the same time know they're avid subscribers to what I think is a false belief on subject Y, so I explicitly distrust them on that matter.
"If someone had not made any opinion yet - they won't have any trust connections on that matter, so if they're reading an anti-vaccine posting,..."
They see that it is vouched for by 1000 other people. They see that a countering article that is also vouched for by 1000 people, but those people are all so-called "experts" and they've read HN and know that "experts" are biased and have perverse incentives and such. Or they just flip a coin. Either way, they believe the anti-vax article.
Because the feedback loop is very open, they see no consequences for their choice. So they also vouch for the anti-vax article.
They see that it is vouched for by 1000 other people. They see that a countering article that is also vouched for by 1000 people, but those people are all so-called "experts" and they've read HN and know that "experts" are biased and have perverse incentives and such. Or they just flip a coin. Either way, they believe the anti-vax article.
Because the feedback loop is very open, they see no consequences for their choice. So they also vouch for the anti-vax article.
> They see that it is vouched for by 1000 other people.
Oh, no, no, if I understood your idea - that's something I really want to avoid. This sort of query must explicitly be against the recommended/designed use. It cannot be a popular vote, it must be peer-to-peer. A web rather than a cesspool. A query must result in "no paths to any trusted sources found".
Just like in the real world - my opinions on, say, some processes in metallurgy (something I have no clue about) cannot depend on opinion of someone I don't have any connections with, even if they're renown expert in that field. I may trust them through some institutions, certification programs or something like that - say, they graduated from some university that I consider trustworthy. But if there are no connections at all I can't say anything about that person's credibility. Best I can do upon reading their opinion is that it's self-appraised.
This web must be designed in a way that people they don't know, people that aren't connected to one's node in the web through peers they know and trust, mustn't have any significant weight, no matter how many there are. One should be free to make their own arbitrary queries, but this online popular vote thing is already known to be a very flawed metric.
Not to mention it would require to solve that very hard one-true-identity problem. If all your connections are people you know, and their connections are people they know, identity becomes a non-issue. As long as the small world hypothesis is close enough to the reality, this should work. And it would be a non-issue even if someone invents a fake identity - it'll either a recognized legit alter ego (pseudonymous account, who still may express opinions people listen to), or a meaningless fake person that no one knows (that may vouch for whatever, the only connections is through its creator).
Oh, no, no, if I understood your idea - that's something I really want to avoid. This sort of query must explicitly be against the recommended/designed use. It cannot be a popular vote, it must be peer-to-peer. A web rather than a cesspool. A query must result in "no paths to any trusted sources found".
Just like in the real world - my opinions on, say, some processes in metallurgy (something I have no clue about) cannot depend on opinion of someone I don't have any connections with, even if they're renown expert in that field. I may trust them through some institutions, certification programs or something like that - say, they graduated from some university that I consider trustworthy. But if there are no connections at all I can't say anything about that person's credibility. Best I can do upon reading their opinion is that it's self-appraised.
This web must be designed in a way that people they don't know, people that aren't connected to one's node in the web through peers they know and trust, mustn't have any significant weight, no matter how many there are. One should be free to make their own arbitrary queries, but this online popular vote thing is already known to be a very flawed metric.
Not to mention it would require to solve that very hard one-true-identity problem. If all your connections are people you know, and their connections are people they know, identity becomes a non-issue. As long as the small world hypothesis is close enough to the reality, this should work. And it would be a non-issue even if someone invents a fake identity - it'll either a recognized legit alter ego (pseudonymous account, who still may express opinions people listen to), or a meaningless fake person that no one knows (that may vouch for whatever, the only connections is through its creator).
> I'd say if someone took IV bleach and it caused harm, the appropriate response isn't license revocation, it's a civil or criminal lawsuit.
If you eliminate the license requirement, what law would the criminal lawsuit be based on? And how would that law be written so it did not apply to a surgeon working on my heart? At what point would it apply to the surgeon?
If you eliminate the license requirement, what law would the criminal lawsuit be based on? And how would that law be written so it did not apply to a surgeon working on my heart? At what point would it apply to the surgeon?
What about in trials? If a defendant grabs some rando off the street to be their attorney and they lose he’ll likely try for an appeal, thus clogging up the court system.
In that case it is an efficient use of resources to require anyone that practices law in a court room to meet some minimum bar (hey I think I found out why it is called the bar exam).
In that case it is an efficient use of resources to require anyone that practices law in a court room to meet some minimum bar (hey I think I found out why it is called the bar exam).
I wish providing medical advice was highly regulated across the board. Crisis pregnancy centers certainly aren't: https://columbialawreview.org/content/pregnancy-centers-and-...
And support forums.
Having a chronic illness eventually you discover your best source of medical knowledge is other people going through the same ordeals.
Doctors become a borderline obstacle to treatment.
I mentioned advertising specifically. I'm not an expert and recognize it gets far more nuanced from there
> Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted
What are you even talking about?
Edit: To clarify, I don't think 100% fatal medical advice is a good analogy for good-faith testimony relating to a "piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes."
Maybe something more like "Hey I'm not a licensed doctor, but in my experience double-fisting twinkies leads to weight gain."
What are you even talking about?
Edit: To clarify, I don't think 100% fatal medical advice is a good analogy for good-faith testimony relating to a "piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes."
Maybe something more like "Hey I'm not a licensed doctor, but in my experience double-fisting twinkies leads to weight gain."
There was a certain political figure I didn't want to invoke who offhandedly suggested this might be a COVID solution.
I'm not aware of any politician who did that.
I edited my previous to be more on-topic, but oh geez, this is a whole different thing and I'll take the bait.
Are you referring to Donald Trump? (There, invoked.) He's a moron and there's plenty to criticize him on. Which is why it's bizarre to see this particular false[0][1] narrative thrown around so much even to this day. If you watch (TDS trigger warning; transcripts in [0][1]) what he actually said[2] and the immediate followup and clarification[3], we can definitely agree that he's not a great communicator, but I think that whole thing got taken out of context in a very dishonest way.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/... [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-... [2] https://youtu.be/PsQnfpfIa_o?t=26m20s (1 min) [3] https://youtu.be/PsQnfpfIa_o?t=30m35s (30 sec)
Are you referring to Donald Trump? (There, invoked.) He's a moron and there's plenty to criticize him on. Which is why it's bizarre to see this particular false[0][1] narrative thrown around so much even to this day. If you watch (TDS trigger warning; transcripts in [0][1]) what he actually said[2] and the immediate followup and clarification[3], we can definitely agree that he's not a great communicator, but I think that whole thing got taken out of context in a very dishonest way.
[0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/11/joe-biden/... [1] https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/apr/24/context-what-... [2] https://youtu.be/PsQnfpfIa_o?t=26m20s (1 min) [3] https://youtu.be/PsQnfpfIa_o?t=30m35s (30 sec)
Many downvotes, but no cited refutations; TDS is strong as ever.
Yet we allowed someone without a medical license to say that with no consequence to the speaker. The AMA did not sue them, no one fined the. Because it is not illegal to give an opinion on something, even if it is a bad uninformed opinion.
> Intravenous bleach suggested by someone we trusted may have caused some real harm.
Who that was even remotely trustworthy suggested that?
Who that was even remotely trustworthy suggested that?
A very stable genius.
This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell.
And "pissed off" in this case means behaving perfectly normally, legally and how we all hope a person would behave.
And "pissed off" in this case means behaving perfectly normally, legally and how we all hope a person would behave.
The guy provided expert testimony in a court. The opposition reported him to the Board of Examiners. The Board of Examiners requires a PE license for those who provide expert testimony. He is going to get to pay the fine.
"Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?"
Giving the speech in a court, on the witness stand, under oath, claiming to be an expert in treating broken bones?
How about an example from engineering? A bridge collapses and fifty or sixty people die. In the resulting lawsuit, Bob, a nationally recognized bridge engineer, testifies, with many pages of reports, that the design of the bridge was substantially bad. Ted, who has a degree in engineering and worked for 20 years as an engineer (designing coffee makers, say) testifies that according to his calculations, of which he presents a plethora, the bridge design was entirely adequate and the failure was an "act of god".
"Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?"
Giving the speech in a court, on the witness stand, under oath, claiming to be an expert in treating broken bones?
How about an example from engineering? A bridge collapses and fifty or sixty people die. In the resulting lawsuit, Bob, a nationally recognized bridge engineer, testifies, with many pages of reports, that the design of the bridge was substantially bad. Ted, who has a degree in engineering and worked for 20 years as an engineer (designing coffee makers, say) testifies that according to his calculations, of which he presents a plethora, the bridge design was entirely adequate and the failure was an "act of god".
Your last example is backwards. In this case the guy without an engineering license is demonstrating what is wrong. So the example should be:
A bridge collapses and people die. In the resulting lawsuit a licensed engineer says, with many pages of reports, that everything was done correctly and the collapse was "an act of god". But an amateur who only knows a little about civil engineering points out one single thing they did incorrectly; he doesn't know everything about engineering, but he does know this one thing they did was wrong. The government then charges the amateur with a crime for knowing a little and speaking about what he knew.
A bridge collapses and people die. In the resulting lawsuit a licensed engineer says, with many pages of reports, that everything was done correctly and the collapse was "an act of god". But an amateur who only knows a little about civil engineering points out one single thing they did incorrectly; he doesn't know everything about engineering, but he does know this one thing they did was wrong. The government then charges the amateur with a crime for knowing a little and speaking about what he knew.
The prosecution should take the amateur's opinion to a certified expert to (1) meet the legal requirements for an expert witness, and (2) verify the amateur is correct. Trial lawyers do this kind of thing all the time with experts. Even if the lawyer understands and can explain the problem, in the US at least, he cannot himself give testimony. He needs to present it through a witness.
What if the licensing board is corrupt? It is perfectly reasonable to suspect that they might protect their own in some cases, similar to police testimonies.
It is definitely possible, and even has a clear financial and reputational incentive. But a lawyer only needs one expert witness and can pay that expert. And then that expert can use his testimony as validation of his skill or a new concept. So the expert witness would also have financial and reputational incentives to defect from the licensing board's dogma. Many people have heard of doctors and psychologists using roles as expert witness to push their theories.
That leaves the risk of a board ousting (or implicitly promising to oust) people based their expert testimony in court. Which would fall back onto the board's rules about revoking licenses. Lawmakers would likely get involved if any funny business happened; revoking isn't an obscure bylaw, but one of the two major purposes of the board (giving licenses being the other). I'll admit this hypothetical gets too complicated and delves too deeply into politics for me to guess likely.
Do you know of any historic examples besides police unions? I'll admit they match your worry, but the police benefit from massive public support that borders on mythology. So it's hard for politicians to do much about those problems.
That leaves the risk of a board ousting (or implicitly promising to oust) people based their expert testimony in court. Which would fall back onto the board's rules about revoking licenses. Lawmakers would likely get involved if any funny business happened; revoking isn't an obscure bylaw, but one of the two major purposes of the board (giving licenses being the other). I'll admit this hypothetical gets too complicated and delves too deeply into politics for me to guess likely.
Do you know of any historic examples besides police unions? I'll admit they match your worry, but the police benefit from massive public support that borders on mythology. So it's hard for politicians to do much about those problems.
The corruption of the licensing board - which is not argued at all in this case, it's just whole-cloth speculation on your part - is not relevant to whether or not Nutt has the first amendment right to testify or the board the right to sanction him if he does.
Yes? If you literally state “I, like 80% of the other engineers in this state, am not a licenced engineer, but here is my testimony”, what else would you expect the poor man to do? It’s up to the judge/jury to take the testimony with a grain of salt.
That said, I’m not sure if being licensed means anything more than ‘I paid my dues to the state board’.
That said, I’m not sure if being licensed means anything more than ‘I paid my dues to the state board’.
To be a PE, you have to do a handful of things. From memory:
Take a test
Study under an actual PE for a period of time
Take another test
Pay some money
Do some work
I studied Engineering in school, but I didn't get a PE because taking the test was too much effort and I wasn't going to work with any PEs, so I assume that actual PEs know stuff that I don't know.
Take a test
Study under an actual PE for a period of time
Take another test
Pay some money
Do some work
I studied Engineering in school, but I didn't get a PE because taking the test was too much effort and I wasn't going to work with any PEs, so I assume that actual PEs know stuff that I don't know.
Continuing education is another.
>"Giving the speech in a court, on the witness stand, under oath"
The right and duty of every citizen, what's your point? The oath obligates you to tell the truth, people testify about fraud and murder without being experts.
The right and duty of every citizen, what's your point? The oath obligates you to tell the truth, people testify about fraud and murder without being experts.
> Shit I have to run but hope to return to this conversation to discuss the other fun questions raised.
Off-topic, but I really love that you contributed a healthy starting point for conversation with a few great observations, then left us waiting for more. People have lots to talk about with what you started, you've piqued interest in the rest of your analysis, and I'm curious about why you had to leave.
Glad you didn't abandon your comment or edit out that you've taken away so much more than you let on.
Off-topic, but I really love that you contributed a healthy starting point for conversation with a few great observations, then left us waiting for more. People have lots to talk about with what you started, you've piqued interest in the rest of your analysis, and I'm curious about why you had to leave.
Glad you didn't abandon your comment or edit out that you've taken away so much more than you let on.
Every time something like this comes up, I think the same thing:
"Register as a professional engineer, jerk."
If you've done actual engineering work for 20+ years, getting a PE is neither that hard nor that expensive and confers quite a bit of legal protection as well.
If your cause-du-jour isn't worth taking the time to go get a PE, perhaps you don't believe in it very much.
As for the vast hordes of HN who think they're a software "engineer" because they can open Visual Studio Code, go pass the the FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) exam and get back to me. Every professional engineer has passed that exam. If you can't muster up that much effort, why should we call you "engineer"?
> Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?
Quite possibly. And what happens when that speech gives the WRONG treatment for a broken bone?
> Who gets to decide the answer.
Generally the licensing board for precisely the reason I gave above.
"Register as a professional engineer, jerk."
If you've done actual engineering work for 20+ years, getting a PE is neither that hard nor that expensive and confers quite a bit of legal protection as well.
If your cause-du-jour isn't worth taking the time to go get a PE, perhaps you don't believe in it very much.
As for the vast hordes of HN who think they're a software "engineer" because they can open Visual Studio Code, go pass the the FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) exam and get back to me. Every professional engineer has passed that exam. If you can't muster up that much effort, why should we call you "engineer"?
> Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’?
Quite possibly. And what happens when that speech gives the WRONG treatment for a broken bone?
> Who gets to decide the answer.
Generally the licensing board for precisely the reason I gave above.
Yes, Licensing boards should get to decide who carries a license, but the customer should decide if they want a licensed engineer.
Customers/employers usually seek professional licensure for as a lazy stopgap against outright fraud for work with poor oversight and high liability. This is why PE's are predominately required for government and civil infrastructure.
For example, It takes a PE to certify a handrail on a municipal bus, while a company could design and sell a neurosurgical robot without a single PE.
In this specific case, if a court and jury don't find a PE license to confer meaningful credibility over someone without, then that seems to be a problem for the licensing board, not the person providing testimony, or the client who hired them.
Customers/employers usually seek professional licensure for as a lazy stopgap against outright fraud for work with poor oversight and high liability. This is why PE's are predominately required for government and civil infrastructure.
For example, It takes a PE to certify a handrail on a municipal bus, while a company could design and sell a neurosurgical robot without a single PE.
In this specific case, if a court and jury don't find a PE license to confer meaningful credibility over someone without, then that seems to be a problem for the licensing board, not the person providing testimony, or the client who hired them.
What is engineering other than expressing an opinion?
Engineers are trained to have expert opinions.
They are expected to consider all relevant factors.
In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference.
It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it predates the first amendment by three millennia.
In that context an unlicensed person holding themselves out as an expert in engineering has disregarded a basic responsibility, they have ignored a relevant legal requirement: their license.
This raises a legitimate concern. What other corners might they have cut for their own benefit?
Because ignoring licensure is to no one’s benefit but the person doing so. It is a violation of the trust people expect when engaging with engineers. The trust that the engineer will be objective in relevant matters.
Licensing engineers is why you don’t worry when you drive across a bridge…or under one. Or go up a tall building or stand next to it. It’s why collapsed bridges are news.
Engineers are trained to have expert opinions.
They are expected to consider all relevant factors.
In AEC the relevant factors include compliance with relevant laws and rules such as the building codes and all the documents incorporated by reference.
It is a matter of life safety and the regulation of construction is at least as old as the Code of Hammurabi…it predates the first amendment by three millennia.
In that context an unlicensed person holding themselves out as an expert in engineering has disregarded a basic responsibility, they have ignored a relevant legal requirement: their license.
This raises a legitimate concern. What other corners might they have cut for their own benefit?
Because ignoring licensure is to no one’s benefit but the person doing so. It is a violation of the trust people expect when engaging with engineers. The trust that the engineer will be objective in relevant matters.
Licensing engineers is why you don’t worry when you drive across a bridge…or under one. Or go up a tall building or stand next to it. It’s why collapsed bridges are news.
No, an engineer without a Professional Engineer license is not "cutting corners". They most likely just don't do the type of work that requires getting a PE.
The article says 80% of engineers are working without a license. From experience, this is especially true for electrical engineering. Someone designing a building's electrical system would have a PE to sign off on plans (or be working under someone with a PE). But someone doing embedded design would not, because there is a completely different approval process for consumer/industrial products - we test rather than simply asserting products are safe because they were designed by a PE.
Without a PE, I am still an engineer. I can say I am an engineer, because "engineer" is not a protected title anywhere in the US. I can speak authoritatively on engineering topics, because I have vast technical knowledge. My opinions on topics I know little about (eg civil engineering) will be tempered with "I think", because knowing one area really well, I am aware of how much I do not know in other areas. Whether anyone chooses to listen to anything I say is their own choice.
What I cannot do is sign off on plans for permits, solicit business that would generally require signing off on plans for permits, or anything else that specifically requires a PE license. Those requirements are in legal force due to the product delivered (eg a bridge requisitioned by the state, a house which needs a building permit) and are not generally applicable for all engineering activity.
There also is the related issue that everybody has the right to technically criticize a situation if they have done the work to make their case. Only a licensed Professional Engineer has the ability to say a bridge is safe, but we all have the right to claim that it is unsafe.
The article says 80% of engineers are working without a license. From experience, this is especially true for electrical engineering. Someone designing a building's electrical system would have a PE to sign off on plans (or be working under someone with a PE). But someone doing embedded design would not, because there is a completely different approval process for consumer/industrial products - we test rather than simply asserting products are safe because they were designed by a PE.
Without a PE, I am still an engineer. I can say I am an engineer, because "engineer" is not a protected title anywhere in the US. I can speak authoritatively on engineering topics, because I have vast technical knowledge. My opinions on topics I know little about (eg civil engineering) will be tempered with "I think", because knowing one area really well, I am aware of how much I do not know in other areas. Whether anyone chooses to listen to anything I say is their own choice.
What I cannot do is sign off on plans for permits, solicit business that would generally require signing off on plans for permits, or anything else that specifically requires a PE license. Those requirements are in legal force due to the product delivered (eg a bridge requisitioned by the state, a house which needs a building permit) and are not generally applicable for all engineering activity.
There also is the related issue that everybody has the right to technically criticize a situation if they have done the work to make their case. Only a licensed Professional Engineer has the ability to say a bridge is safe, but we all have the right to claim that it is unsafe.
The person subject to the complaint prepared stormwater calculations and submitted it as evidence in a legal proceeding.
The letter that person received from the board is linked in the article.
It states the person is charged and gives them the opportunity for a written response.
Civil engineering typically requires a PE.
The letter that person received from the board is linked in the article.
It states the person is charged and gives them the opportunity for a written response.
Civil engineering typically requires a PE.
Nothing is being built from this. It is testimony on the quality of something else. People other than engineers get to have opinions on the validity of something. It is up to the opposition to discredit him.
He has not practiced engineering in any way whatsoever.
He has not practiced engineering in any way whatsoever.
Engineering generally refers to design and building, of which analysis is a single part. So it's not immediately apparent that Nutt was practicing engineering at all.
It's more accurate to say that the kind of projects civil engineers work on generally end up requiring a PE, as a condition of actually being built. Small time civil engineering in your own backyard does not require a PE - eg improving drainage, setting up a windmill, building a chicken coop, etc.
Prohibiting people from applying mathematical formulas in court arguments because doing so is "engineering" is a dangerous idea. If you're fighting a speeding ticket, is it "engineering" to independently calculate your speed by measuring the time between two points?
Ultimately if the stormwater calculations are complex enough that the court is unable to follow them itself, then it is up to the court to disregard his testimony because he is not a professional engineer with a trustable opinion. That would be a perfectly reasonable outcome here.
But what the state board is attempting to do is to prohibit anybody from examining technicalities without the right license. That's the path to closed society madness.
It's more accurate to say that the kind of projects civil engineers work on generally end up requiring a PE, as a condition of actually being built. Small time civil engineering in your own backyard does not require a PE - eg improving drainage, setting up a windmill, building a chicken coop, etc.
Prohibiting people from applying mathematical formulas in court arguments because doing so is "engineering" is a dangerous idea. If you're fighting a speeding ticket, is it "engineering" to independently calculate your speed by measuring the time between two points?
Ultimately if the stormwater calculations are complex enough that the court is unable to follow them itself, then it is up to the court to disregard his testimony because he is not a professional engineer with a trustable opinion. That would be a perfectly reasonable outcome here.
But what the state board is attempting to do is to prohibit anybody from examining technicalities without the right license. That's the path to closed society madness.
Nutt provided expert testimony as an engineer. That is legally defined as "practicing engineering".
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...
https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...
That link is just the North Carolina license board's position statement. They're the defendants in this case, for attempting to claim such overbroad authority.
Nutt's position is that their claim conflicts with his first amendment right to free speech, specifically his right to state his opinion on technical matters.
I agree with Nutt. NC is effectively attempting to criminalize my ability to represent myself in court and many other areas of society (enumerated in a sibling comment) - due to having the "regulated knowledge" of engineering without the corresponding license, I would be unable to state my opinion. Instead I would have to hire a PE that concurs with me simply to express my own opinion.
Nutt's position is that their claim conflicts with his first amendment right to free speech, specifically his right to state his opinion on technical matters.
I agree with Nutt. NC is effectively attempting to criminalize my ability to represent myself in court and many other areas of society (enumerated in a sibling comment) - due to having the "regulated knowledge" of engineering without the corresponding license, I would be unable to state my opinion. Instead I would have to hire a PE that concurs with me simply to express my own opinion.
I very much doubt the federal courts are going to agree that free speech applies to expert testimony.
And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.
And if you attempt to provide expert testimony in your own defense, the court will likely laugh at you. You will have to hire an outside expert to provide expert testimony.
It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony.
Suppressing testimony by punishing people for speaking honestly (nor merely disregarding their testimony) undermines the very foundation of thr legal system.
Suppressing testimony by punishing people for speaking honestly (nor merely disregarding their testimony) undermines the very foundation of thr legal system.
> It's hard to imagine a place where free speech is more important than in Court testimony.
This is obviously wrong. Lying is broadly protected by free speech but firmly illegal, not just inadmissible, in court testimony. Courts also have the ability to compel testimony under criminal penalty, while free speech includes the right to say nothing or dissemble. Evidentiary standards place further requirements even on the source of what you are saying, regardless of its truth.
Or as the 6th Circuit put it, "The courtroom is a nonpublic forum, where the First Amendment rights of everyone (attorneys included) are at their constitutional nadir."
This is obviously wrong. Lying is broadly protected by free speech but firmly illegal, not just inadmissible, in court testimony. Courts also have the ability to compel testimony under criminal penalty, while free speech includes the right to say nothing or dissemble. Evidentiary standards place further requirements even on the source of what you are saying, regardless of its truth.
Or as the 6th Circuit put it, "The courtroom is a nonpublic forum, where the First Amendment rights of everyone (attorneys included) are at their constitutional nadir."
He didn't lie though, he said in his testimony that he wasn't a licenced engineer.
And that's why he's been accused of practicing engineering without a license and not perjury, and why this is a reply to a specific statement about the first amendment in courtrooms and not a top-level comment about This One Oppressed Guy.
Even if he's 100% correct, that doesn't mean he has a first amendment right to testify!
Even if he's 100% correct, that doesn't mean he has a first amendment right to testify!
The question of whether something counts as expert testimony - judgement calls that can be relied on as impartial facts - is up to the court itself. That is not in dispute here.
"The yellow light timing is below table X of the traffic code, and therefore my ticket for running the red light is invalid because I was not given the chance to stop in time."
That's an argument that an individual can straightforwardly make and a judge can choose to accept or not by following the same reasoning. It involves engineering analysis, yet it is low stakes enough to make hiring a Professional Engineer prohibitive.
Under the North Carolina board's position, a person who makes this argument is committing a crime. That effectively creates a privileged class of people whose decisions (or oversights) cannot be questioned even when they're blatantly wrong - in this example, the traffic engineers responsible for the intersection.
"The yellow light timing is below table X of the traffic code, and therefore my ticket for running the red light is invalid because I was not given the chance to stop in time."
That's an argument that an individual can straightforwardly make and a judge can choose to accept or not by following the same reasoning. It involves engineering analysis, yet it is low stakes enough to make hiring a Professional Engineer prohibitive.
Under the North Carolina board's position, a person who makes this argument is committing a crime. That effectively creates a privileged class of people whose decisions (or oversights) cannot be questioned even when they're blatantly wrong - in this example, the traffic engineers responsible for the intersection.
Here the practice of engineering is specifically set out in statute, regulation, and legal precedent. As are the duties of the board, its process, penalties for violations, and appeals processes.
The board is investigating a case based on its authority. The authority exists via democratic process originating with the legislative process and state constitution.
The regulation of engineering is within the scope of the states per the US Constitution and established legal precedent.
The board is investigating a case based on its authority. The authority exists via democratic process originating with the legislative process and state constitution.
The regulation of engineering is within the scope of the states per the US Constitution and established legal precedent.
You didn't address the substantive part of my comment. Straightforwardly under the regime you've described, individuals are not only prevented from, but can be actively punished for:
1. Using mathematical formulas to demonstrate facts, such as pointing out that speed can be calculated by distance over time.
2. Pointing out how a red light camera fails to meet required implementation details.
3. Pointing out how a bridge is unsafe.
4. Pointing out that an expert witness is glaringly wrong.
5. Comment on the details of a public proposal.
Nutt's case is analogous to 3. Nutt did not design the stormwater system. He is critiquing it for a poor design. In an open society, that is everyone's right. The court can choose to find his reasoning lacking or simply non-understandable, but he shouldn't then be getting attacked for having spoken his opinion.
Errors and disagreements are common in engineering, as in any art, and so any honest engineer should be worried about criminalizing debate. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
Licensure boards can be notoriously aggressive, which is why this case is getting attention. Furthermore, state-chartered entities are commonly over scoped because they're really just extensions of the state executive, with only court cases to push back on them. Your argument from status quo is uncompelling.
1. Using mathematical formulas to demonstrate facts, such as pointing out that speed can be calculated by distance over time.
2. Pointing out how a red light camera fails to meet required implementation details.
3. Pointing out how a bridge is unsafe.
4. Pointing out that an expert witness is glaringly wrong.
5. Comment on the details of a public proposal.
Nutt's case is analogous to 3. Nutt did not design the stormwater system. He is critiquing it for a poor design. In an open society, that is everyone's right. The court can choose to find his reasoning lacking or simply non-understandable, but he shouldn't then be getting attacked for having spoken his opinion.
Errors and disagreements are common in engineering, as in any art, and so any honest engineer should be worried about criminalizing debate. Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
Licensure boards can be notoriously aggressive, which is why this case is getting attention. Furthermore, state-chartered entities are commonly over scoped because they're really just extensions of the state executive, with only court cases to push back on them. Your argument from status quo is uncompelling.
He claims that this all supported by precedent (and the US Constitution itself!), without citing any of the precedent.
[deleted]
1. This particular engineer worked legally as an engineer for DuPontt due to an industrial exception and was not required to license. There was no corner cut.
2. There is some precedent implying a free speech concern: https://reason.com/2019/01/02/judge-confirms-that-oregon-eng...
2. There is some precedent implying a free speech concern: https://reason.com/2019/01/02/judge-confirms-that-oregon-eng...
My understanding is the events that sparked the investigation were outside of the subject’s workplace/employment. Hence “retired.”
The preponderance of precedent favors the board’s concerns and right to investigate.
Being slightly familiar with North Carolina professional regulations, I suspect this holds true at the state level in particular.
The legal argument is inconsistent. It claims that the regulations don’t apply because the regulations apply via the industrial exemption in the regulations…never mind the retired.
The preponderance of precedent favors the board’s concerns and right to investigate.
Being slightly familiar with North Carolina professional regulations, I suspect this holds true at the state level in particular.
The legal argument is inconsistent. It claims that the regulations don’t apply because the regulations apply via the industrial exemption in the regulations…never mind the retired.
The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license must be suspect and is cheating the rules.
You seem to have missed the legal argument in the Oregon case which had nothing to do with an industrial exemption.
You seem to have missed the legal argument in the Oregon case which had nothing to do with an industrial exemption.
"The first point addressed the suggest that any engineer who didn’t get their license and testified as an engineering expert witness must be suspect and is cheating the rules."
Nutt became required to get a license when he began practicing engineering outside the "industrial exception".
Nutt became required to get a license when he began practicing engineering outside the "industrial exception".
I guess we disagree that making an argument backed up with engineering while clearly not misrepresenting himself is ‘practicing engineering.’ That argument, however, is somewhat covered by the proceedings of the Oregon case.
Why is a license more important than skill and experience? So you’ll trust a person that’s failed the license multiple times, is barely able to do the job, and has a history of failing at their job because they have a license? Because those issues still happen with licensed professionals. A license doesn’t prove aptitude, it just proves you passed a test. I’ve met multiple structural engineers that relied heavily on computer software for validation because they couldn’t understand calculus
The person without a license who is doing something that requires a license is not taking full responsibility for what they are doing.
They are doing something that is only to their own benefit in a context where other people’s lives are at stake.
Quite simply it is unprofessional. A person without a license can hire a licensed professional for oversight. That’s the responsible thing to do.
In the US, engineering licensure requires supervised experience, testing, and typically (but not always) formal education at the bachelor level.
One requirement of professional practice is not working beyond one’s competence irrespective of having a license and engineering boards take that seriously.
I guess that’s the thing, an unlicensed person doing unsupervised work requiring a license is some combination of incompetent, unqualified, or negligent.
To put it another way, licensure ensures that a person has a minimum amount of skill, training, and experience. And that they take responsibility.
They are doing something that is only to their own benefit in a context where other people’s lives are at stake.
Quite simply it is unprofessional. A person without a license can hire a licensed professional for oversight. That’s the responsible thing to do.
In the US, engineering licensure requires supervised experience, testing, and typically (but not always) formal education at the bachelor level.
One requirement of professional practice is not working beyond one’s competence irrespective of having a license and engineering boards take that seriously.
I guess that’s the thing, an unlicensed person doing unsupervised work requiring a license is some combination of incompetent, unqualified, or negligent.
To put it another way, licensure ensures that a person has a minimum amount of skill, training, and experience. And that they take responsibility.
But who decides it needs a license? Other licensed individuals? I would do a better job sticking to requirements than a lot of licensed engineers. It’s cheaper and easier for me to do all the work, and then hire a firm to say it passes requirements than getting said license. It gives me the freedom to engineer in any field I’m interested. I have previously done mechanical, electrical, structural, and medical engineering. How would a license help me? It’s waste years of my life, tons of money, jobs in don’t want, and at the end of it I can work in a field I may no longer want to be in.
The legislature delegates authority to the board.
Yes you can hire an engineer to supervise your work.
Then you have successfully avoided responsibility for it.
And legally as well.
A license would allow you to take responsibility for what you do.
I can understand why someone wouldn't want it.
I don't understand why someone who has chosen that route whines about it.
Yes you can hire an engineer to supervise your work.
Then you have successfully avoided responsibility for it.
And legally as well.
A license would allow you to take responsibility for what you do.
I can understand why someone wouldn't want it.
I don't understand why someone who has chosen that route whines about it.
Thats fine. The pount is that the work should be signed off by a licenssd engineer.
Texas may do a lot of crazy things when it comes to state government, but one thing I think we definitely got right is the Texas Sunset Commission (https://www.sunset.texas.gov/). Basically, all boards set up by the state government are automatically abolished every 10 years I believe unless the state legislature passes a law to continue the board. So every 10 years the Sunset Commission evaluates agencies/boards about to expire and gives recommendations on if they should be merged, eliminated, etc.
The whole idea is to prevent these little long-running fiefdoms from continuing indefinitely, where board members just become more concerned about their own power than their stated purpose.
People being people it's not perfect, but it does go a long way to cut down on this type of abuse.
The whole idea is to prevent these little long-running fiefdoms from continuing indefinitely, where board members just become more concerned about their own power than their stated purpose.
People being people it's not perfect, but it does go a long way to cut down on this type of abuse.
The worst example of this is Oregon has their own version of the FAA. It’s grandfathered in because it was established before the FAA. You pay $12 a year for an Oregon pilot’s registration. And in return for this bureaucracy, society gets... nothing.
Oregon’s gas pumping laws has some hilarious justifications.
> “The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility”
More here: https://medium.com/policy-northwest/the-insanity-of-oregons-...
Safety is important but wet pavements are also a hazard when you leave your house or literally do anything outside. Laws that try to masquerade for progressive causes for the sake of your “safety” are rampant in Oregon. There are so many of these insane laws piled up over the years. A friend of mine who was an licensed Architect in the state of Oregon recently moved to Phoenix. Reason? Unbelievable mess of laws and regulations that make it impossible to construct anything but a bog standard house.
> “The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility”
More here: https://medium.com/policy-northwest/the-insanity-of-oregons-...
Safety is important but wet pavements are also a hazard when you leave your house or literally do anything outside. Laws that try to masquerade for progressive causes for the sake of your “safety” are rampant in Oregon. There are so many of these insane laws piled up over the years. A friend of mine who was an licensed Architect in the state of Oregon recently moved to Phoenix. Reason? Unbelievable mess of laws and regulations that make it impossible to construct anything but a bog standard house.
My favorite result of that law was when I stopped to get gas in Washington state near the border with Oregon. I made eye contact with two 20-somethings that were arguing back and forth about something. After I'm done one of them worked up enough courage to approach me and ask for help. Being from Oregon, this was their first attempt to fill up a car on their own, and they couldn't figure out how to make the pump work (they didn't push the handle with enough force to engage the vapor recovery).
I live in Oregon, but grew up outside the state so fortunately I do know how to pump my own gas. One thing that has fascinated me is that our gas is no more expensive, and often cheaper, than surrounding states despite providing many jobs. One benefit of this system was shown recently when no truck beds or plastic bags were filled with gasoline.
But they are paid from some other budget, or perhaps from state income taxes. That has a real effect on something, it’s just not apparent what. Any job that only exists via mandate is taking the place of some other economic activity.
They are paid by the station owners, so the money reduces their profits and perhaps long-term investments in new pumps or other equipment. In reality, the soda and candy inside probably all costs 10 cents more than it otherwise would.
One consequence is that our state gas tax hasn't been raised in decades. That's why our gas is cheaper than across the border in WA. They pay a much higher per gallon tax than we do. My town has gotten around this by adding a $10 a month fee for road improvements to our water bills. Other cities and towns let their roads crumble.
One consequence is that our state gas tax hasn't been raised in decades. That's why our gas is cheaper than across the border in WA. They pay a much higher per gallon tax than we do. My town has gotten around this by adding a $10 a month fee for road improvements to our water bills. Other cities and towns let their roads crumble.
"candy and soda inside"
I'd estimate that only a small proportion of stations in NJ are attached to any convenience stores that sell things. On highways, yes. Off of highways around towns, they're often attached to a mechanic's garage, and the only things sold beside gas is windshield fluid and a spare quart of oil.
It's notable that NJ and Oregon both have cheap gas relative to many other parts of the country due to close proximity with oil refining &/or transportation infrastructure, which means lower costs to get it to the gas stations.
Although in NJ that discount is slowly going away as the state gradually ratchets up tax on gas purchases. Without that tax they would have by far the cheapest in the country by roughly 16% or $.50/gallon. Now NJ is only cheaper than most when there's a spike in oil prices stemming more from transportation costs, or at least that's what I've observed.
I'd estimate that only a small proportion of stations in NJ are attached to any convenience stores that sell things. On highways, yes. Off of highways around towns, they're often attached to a mechanic's garage, and the only things sold beside gas is windshield fluid and a spare quart of oil.
It's notable that NJ and Oregon both have cheap gas relative to many other parts of the country due to close proximity with oil refining &/or transportation infrastructure, which means lower costs to get it to the gas stations.
Although in NJ that discount is slowly going away as the state gradually ratchets up tax on gas purchases. Without that tax they would have by far the cheapest in the country by roughly 16% or $.50/gallon. Now NJ is only cheaper than most when there's a spike in oil prices stemming more from transportation costs, or at least that's what I've observed.
I have had other customers in Oregon very, very loud and angry about me getting out and running the pump myself. They immediately dismiss my statement that it’s perfectly legal for us to dispense diesel, just not gasoline, until an employee usually tells them it’s legal and they appreciate it.
I went down the Rogue River a few summers.
While driving home, I remember thinking that Gas Station Attendant was looking at me funny.
It wasen't until a few years later I heard about the law.
(There's a stretch of highway 101 around Shasta that is a Speed Trap. The cops pull over four vechicles at a time and give everyone tickets. They supposedly use a plane, but I never saw one. They got busted a few years ago, but I heard they are doing it again.)
While driving home, I remember thinking that Gas Station Attendant was looking at me funny.
It wasen't until a few years later I heard about the law.
(There's a stretch of highway 101 around Shasta that is a Speed Trap. The cops pull over four vechicles at a time and give everyone tickets. They supposedly use a plane, but I never saw one. They got busted a few years ago, but I heard they are doing it again.)
You know, in all my years of driving in California speeding past “enforced by aircraft” signs, I have never once been pulled over by an airplane.
I have, though it was in Western Washington out in the middle of a long straight boring stretch of highway.
I think the comment you're replying to went over your head.
Well, it's diesel. Any idiot can operate a diesel pump. So you're talking apples to, well I guess just a very slightly different type of apple.
If you want a jobs program, do something for the crumbling infrastructure in Oregon. Actually provide value to the society. Pumping gas is a giant waste of tax dollars and it is not preparing the populace for better jobs - it is the equivalent of flipping burgers.
It is the worst possible way to create a 'jobs program'.
It is the worst possible way to create a 'jobs program'.
I've lived in Oregon most of my life, and while I think the law is basically pointless and would love to have it revoked, it doesn't waste any tax dollars. It just makes running a gas station more expensive
> It just makes running a gas station more expensive
Not quite right: It makes buying gas more expensive.
The state of Oregon could, instead, increase gas taxes by a few cents and devote that wealth to some other economic activity. The net result of the law is waste.
Not quite right: It makes buying gas more expensive.
The state of Oregon could, instead, increase gas taxes by a few cents and devote that wealth to some other economic activity. The net result of the law is waste.
It may be cheaper than elsewhere because of the close proximity to Washington's large refining capacity, from which Oregon gets most of it's supply. It's the same with certain areas on the east coast.
That doesn’t explain why Oregon is cheaper than Washington.
If you're looking for a mess of laws, take a look at the OLCC trying to wrestle hemp regulation from the department of agriculture. It hasn't happened yet, but they've been working for years to try to get it under their jurisdiction and impose a lot of new fees.
Hemp definitely needs regulation, but the OLCC notoriously over-regulates for the sake of control and income. I'm pretty confident that is OLCC got control, they'd end up putting a lot of folks out of business through excessive red tape
Hemp definitely needs regulation, but the OLCC notoriously over-regulates for the sake of control and income. I'm pretty confident that is OLCC got control, they'd end up putting a lot of folks out of business through excessive red tape
NJ is similar. Always hilarious to see the contortions of logic used to explain why roughly 95% of the population-- and any NJ & Oregon resident who leaves the state-- is fully capable of pumping gas, but anyone in these states suddenly become unable to do so.
Heck when traveling through NJ and there was a single attendant at a busy station, I got out and pumped my own gas. No one cared.
Heck when traveling through NJ and there was a single attendant at a busy station, I got out and pumped my own gas. No one cared.
You know, that gas-pumping law comes up for vote every few years, and each time it’s re-approved. For the most part, people like it.
It’s become a matter of pride for Oregonians - kind of like how hazing rituals persist.
It would be amusing if Oregon required an electrician to plug in an EV at a public charger.
It would be amusing if Oregon required an electrician to plug in an EV at a public charger.
[deleted]
Personally, I love it and will vote to continue it every time.
Do not mind if it is a jobs program. People need the work. Rain sucks. Handling gas sucks.
I get to catch up on a text, queue a show up for driving and pretty much never mind a wait.
Do not mind if it is a jobs program. People need the work. Rain sucks. Handling gas sucks.
I get to catch up on a text, queue a show up for driving and pretty much never mind a wait.
Don't you think there's some other job they could be doing that benefits society more?
These may be three sub discussions, which is why they are separate replies.
Frankly, I would love a Federal and State based program to get more basic labor done. Think of the WPA and CCC from New Deal era times.
So many people need skills, an out from or alternative to service work. Not a thing wrong with service work, but many will want or need to do better. There are simply not enough better jobs for that to happen.
Our parks, roads, towns, many things need work. So, let's get that work done. People can get some real skills out of that stuff. Great! I happen to have many of them growing up how and where I did. I think nothing of building, repairing, whatever. It is familiar and I was shown the good stuff by skilled people. Frankly, these skills can be worth 6 figures in a life. Fix it, help others, improve it, build it, etc...
And when we have all that work in progress, maybe we can then discuss whether pumping gas is a priority or not. Nice problem to have, if you ask me. How can we have it?
That is the kind of what is worth what discussion I would welcome and require to reconsider fuel attendants.
Frankly, I would love a Federal and State based program to get more basic labor done. Think of the WPA and CCC from New Deal era times.
So many people need skills, an out from or alternative to service work. Not a thing wrong with service work, but many will want or need to do better. There are simply not enough better jobs for that to happen.
Our parks, roads, towns, many things need work. So, let's get that work done. People can get some real skills out of that stuff. Great! I happen to have many of them growing up how and where I did. I think nothing of building, repairing, whatever. It is familiar and I was shown the good stuff by skilled people. Frankly, these skills can be worth 6 figures in a life. Fix it, help others, improve it, build it, etc...
And when we have all that work in progress, maybe we can then discuss whether pumping gas is a priority or not. Nice problem to have, if you ask me. How can we have it?
That is the kind of what is worth what discussion I would welcome and require to reconsider fuel attendants.
Nope.
To clarify:
I am part of society and value my time. Having fuel pumped is a great deal. I benefit significantly. Others do as well. Apparently enough of us do.
Besides, basic labors really add up in our lives. They provide great value and the people who do them should earn enough to live a reasonable, dignified life same as anyone else.
I do not want to do basic labors, but will when required. There are more interesting uses of my time. Getting the use of that time is how we should value basic labors.
I value that highly.
To clarify:
I am part of society and value my time. Having fuel pumped is a great deal. I benefit significantly. Others do as well. Apparently enough of us do.
Besides, basic labors really add up in our lives. They provide great value and the people who do them should earn enough to live a reasonable, dignified life same as anyone else.
I do not want to do basic labors, but will when required. There are more interesting uses of my time. Getting the use of that time is how we should value basic labors.
I value that highly.
Second point: I do not feel it is necessary to maximize to that degree. We do not need to do that.
A little slack in the system is a very good thing. Think people with troubled past getting a start to build on. That is necessary, or we pay much harder in other ways.
A little slack in the system is a very good thing. Think people with troubled past getting a start to build on. That is necessary, or we pay much harder in other ways.
These are whole human lives, paid to do nothing but pour liquid from one container to another. That doesn't seem like "a little slack", that seems like a sad waste of human capital.
Pay them to attend junior college or something. The payoff is a million times higher.
Pay them to attend junior college or something. The payoff is a million times higher.
They are paid to perform basic labor like tons of people are paid, and with that comes all sorts of other things, including going to school. I had a traffic ticket nicely handled by an attorney who bagged groceries to get through school.
A while back, my kid was on a baseball team coached by a guy who included pumping gas in the set of things he does to exist, show up for work and do things in this world.
Who are you to judge and put such shame on work that has respectable value? I will answer for you: nobody, same as me, that's who.
And "attend college" = not waste? I must be frank: implying people who do basic labors are somehow wasted, or in need of education is not a reputable assessment. Not to mention, "who pays?" Are we going to put free college out there? I sure hope so, and support that idea. In that scenario, one could pump gas, live small and get an education. More of that in our society please!
The place I get my gas from does my windows, we sometimes catch up on a bit of local news, exchange a joke, "you want that to go?" got that started, and yeah, I chuckled. And more.
"Human capital"
I reject that idea entirely. There is no waste in any of this.
Lives break down into thirds, one of which is work, one is sleep, and the remaining one, ideally funded reasonably by the work and a healthy society, is for people to just be people. Maybe that means hanging out with family, coaching a team, making art, fixing stuff, who knows, and more importantly, who cares?
"A life", "wasted", why? Because you do not feel good about how other people live their lives? Let them do that, you have your own to manage.
I sure do not need my entire life judged by the work I do, nor do I care to have that other third be anything other than what I feel makes the most sense for me, mine, others who I value.
In the scale of things? Yeah, it is a little slack. Easy work. And plenty of people value it. I sure do.
Frankly, in light of the massive abuse, killing, poisoning of "human capital" we do globally, along with our general apathy when it comes to taking care of our own people, I find this line of discussion laughable!
Seriously.
In simple, priority terms, as in something we really should get after?
This does not rate. At. All.
A while back, my kid was on a baseball team coached by a guy who included pumping gas in the set of things he does to exist, show up for work and do things in this world.
Who are you to judge and put such shame on work that has respectable value? I will answer for you: nobody, same as me, that's who.
And "attend college" = not waste? I must be frank: implying people who do basic labors are somehow wasted, or in need of education is not a reputable assessment. Not to mention, "who pays?" Are we going to put free college out there? I sure hope so, and support that idea. In that scenario, one could pump gas, live small and get an education. More of that in our society please!
The place I get my gas from does my windows, we sometimes catch up on a bit of local news, exchange a joke, "you want that to go?" got that started, and yeah, I chuckled. And more.
"Human capital"
I reject that idea entirely. There is no waste in any of this.
Lives break down into thirds, one of which is work, one is sleep, and the remaining one, ideally funded reasonably by the work and a healthy society, is for people to just be people. Maybe that means hanging out with family, coaching a team, making art, fixing stuff, who knows, and more importantly, who cares?
"A life", "wasted", why? Because you do not feel good about how other people live their lives? Let them do that, you have your own to manage.
I sure do not need my entire life judged by the work I do, nor do I care to have that other third be anything other than what I feel makes the most sense for me, mine, others who I value.
In the scale of things? Yeah, it is a little slack. Easy work. And plenty of people value it. I sure do.
Frankly, in light of the massive abuse, killing, poisoning of "human capital" we do globally, along with our general apathy when it comes to taking care of our own people, I find this line of discussion laughable!
Seriously.
In simple, priority terms, as in something we really should get after?
This does not rate. At. All.
queue a show up for driving
shouldn't you not be watching shows while driving? Or do you mean podcasts or something?
shouldn't you not be watching shows while driving? Or do you mean podcasts or something?
Shows are aural, visual, etc.. when driving, I listen, though the content may contain video. Love listening to all sorts of stuff in the car.
I may abuse the general term "show", and am happy to own that as well as can't be arsed to improve. To me, it is all just a show.
I may abuse the general term "show", and am happy to own that as well as can't be arsed to improve. To me, it is all just a show.
Ah, that makes sense, I've done that once or twice, but now I listen to audiobooks. Pretty much constantly actually, even at work. Especially at work: helps me concentrate without getting distracted. Unless something requires my absolutely full attention.
I will listen to an audiobook from time to time myself. A good reader makes for a nice experience! Thinking back, I have never referred to those as a show.
Here's a few of my favorite readers. If I don't enjoy a book, it's never because of them. And they're good enough that they're never on some of the self-published audiobooks coming through Amazon's ACX program. (don't get me wrong: there's some good stuff there, it's just hit or miss both on writer quality & narrator quality) meaning you'll often find them outside of the Amazon ecosystem as well, if you get audiobooks from somewhere other than audible.
Anyway, here they are. All very different styles, but all very good:
John Lee
William Dufris
Stefan Rudnicki
Scott Brick
In fact, if you enjoy scifi/fantasy, The Psalms of Isaak by Ken Scholes has a full cast with all of the above except for John Lee. (John Less
That series is a very thoughtful set of books, not easily placed into a nice category of high/low fantasy & doesn't romanticize feudalism societies with royalty, lords, etc being the only notable characters. That always annoys me about some types of fantasy: Taking a style of government that is brutal & freedom crushing for 99.99% of the population & focus on the lucky few who where fancy clothes and go to feasts, with a token peasant as "the chosen one".
Anyway, here they are. All very different styles, but all very good:
John Lee
William Dufris
Stefan Rudnicki
Scott Brick
In fact, if you enjoy scifi/fantasy, The Psalms of Isaak by Ken Scholes has a full cast with all of the above except for John Lee. (John Less
That series is a very thoughtful set of books, not easily placed into a nice category of high/low fantasy & doesn't romanticize feudalism societies with royalty, lords, etc being the only notable characters. That always annoys me about some types of fantasy: Taking a style of government that is brutal & freedom crushing for 99.99% of the population & focus on the lucky few who where fancy clothes and go to feasts, with a token peasant as "the chosen one".
Thanks! Much appreciated.
While it's always possible OR AA employees do little (certainly plenty of organizations public and private have such employees), it also seems plausible that it does regional AA things that would otherwise be ... regional FAA jobs.
Bureaucracy isn't that different from code. Some of it's dead legacy that needs to be removed, some of it's legacy that needs to be improved/replaced, some of it's legacy that's good enough, some of it's there for a damn good reason no matter how ugly it looks.
And when it comes to code, you probably trust devs who have specific insights into issues with code and promising replacements.
Bureaucracy isn't that different from code. Some of it's dead legacy that needs to be removed, some of it's legacy that needs to be improved/replaced, some of it's legacy that's good enough, some of it's there for a damn good reason no matter how ugly it looks.
And when it comes to code, you probably trust devs who have specific insights into issues with code and promising replacements.
Do you have a link where I can learn more about that?
Some quick googling turns up nothing more than the state Department of Aviation, which looks serve the same purpose as other states' departments of aviation. Namely, to maintain state-owned airfields and support some planning functions.
Some quick googling turns up nothing more than the state Department of Aviation, which looks serve the same purpose as other states' departments of aviation. Namely, to maintain state-owned airfields and support some planning functions.
Does it not create jobs?
Not saying it's good nor bad.
Not saying it's good nor bad.
According to their website, there are 15.5 FT employees. I don't consider healthy adults getting paid to do meaningless work a benefit to society.
I understand that 95% of American defense is a jobs program. Let's fry the bigger fish first.
By what metric? About 25% of the military budget is in salaries, and a professional military has to be paid whether or not they're in combat.
To be fair, you can actually use that for some purpose if you really wanted.
I don’t think that is the case for a redundant board.
I don’t think that is the case for a redundant board.
I got through college doing meaningless jobs.
Security jobs, and working at a gas station, allowed me to do all my homework.
Security jobs, and working at a gas station, allowed me to do all my homework.
It can function as a jobs program, giving living wages to more people, and letting them spend their salary back into the economy.
But it would be nice if jobs programs produced more benefit.
But it would be nice if jobs programs produced more benefit.
What generally happens is that a select few get to receive pay for a fake job and everyone else of worse off by having to pay for it by force.
Actual benefit comes when people get paid by other people voluntarily making the exchange
Actual benefit comes when people get paid by other people voluntarily making the exchange
There's plenty of work of more value than pumping gas that would give people a living wage and put a lot more back into the economy. Right now it's a drain on the economy, albeit miniscule compare to the whole. Either way, it drives up prices and costs of operation. A jobs program should at least have some benefit beyond being an indirect tax on everyone. Otherwise we might as well just take the same people and pay them to dig holes they fill in the next day while letting people buying gas get through the process a little faster without having to wait for a spare attendant at a busy station. It's always frustrating to pull up to a station with 12 pumps and just 1 or 2 attendants on a busy day as a dozen cars lined up behind the ones at the pumps. Then have to wait 10 minutes just to get the pump started in your own car.
And all I can think about are the two attendants running back & forth trying to get as many pumps going as they can, running ragged for a completely bogus reason. Then sometimes the attendants don't even try and the wait is longer, yet those are making the more rational choice of not driving themselves crazy making shit money for a worthless task.
And all I can think about are the two attendants running back & forth trying to get as many pumps going as they can, running ragged for a completely bogus reason. Then sometimes the attendants don't even try and the wait is longer, yet those are making the more rational choice of not driving themselves crazy making shit money for a worthless task.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window for why this is bad.
So is there also a kind of "reverse broken window" fallacy, e.g., for housing, where not tearing down an old... excuse me... "historic" building prevents the creation of bigger and better things?
If it creates jobs and doesn't do anything, it is bad, like anything else that has a cost but no benefits. Jobs are costs -- they force you to spend your life doing one thing when you could be doing all manner of other useful things. Only if your job produces useful things does that benefit outweigh the cost of having to spend your life on it.
No benefits? It keeps people off the streets and gives them something to do, pointless or not. The net benefit to society is positive, which is why it keeps getting voted for.
I live in a place with a severe homeless problem. I wish these people had pointless government jobs rather than be out begging on the street.
I live in a place with a severe homeless problem. I wish these people had pointless government jobs rather than be out begging on the street.
That makes sense, thanks!
Some quick searching showed there are about 10,000 gas station attendant jobs in NJ.
So we could take 5,000 of them and have them dig holes all day. And the other 5,000 could fill in the holes on the following days. That's about as productive.
Or, if we're viewing it purely as a jobs program, find meaningful work, even if it was just patrolling the town they would have pumped gas in & instead picking up any and every piece of litter and garbage they see, documenting potholes they see in the road or loose branches around power lines for the town's DPW to deal with proactively.
So we could take 5,000 of them and have them dig holes all day. And the other 5,000 could fill in the holes on the following days. That's about as productive.
Or, if we're viewing it purely as a jobs program, find meaningful work, even if it was just patrolling the town they would have pumped gas in & instead picking up any and every piece of litter and garbage they see, documenting potholes they see in the road or loose branches around power lines for the town's DPW to deal with proactively.
I'm not sure why this is being downvoted. Much, if not all, of politics, on both sides, for ordinary people, is concerning who gets what welfare. For every Oregon FAA there are probably 100 offices in the military and government agricultural sector that provide a small number of good but sort of meaningless jobs.
For every 1 soldier actually shooting bullets or 1 bonafide back-bending farmer there are 999 comfy desk jobs for college educated people in the same org chart. Many for whom college was paid for by that government. Is that good or bad?
For every 1 soldier actually shooting bullets or 1 bonafide back-bending farmer there are 999 comfy desk jobs for college educated people in the same org chart. Many for whom college was paid for by that government. Is that good or bad?
> Is that good or bad?
I’m gonna go with bad.
I’m gonna go with bad.
Do you just fire them and let them go on unemployment? If everything else is held constant, then there's nothing done and more people without money. It's an even greater drain on society, not to mention these people's lives.
You fire them and let them get a job where they can do something beneficial for society. There's more than enough work out there, hell just picking up trash would provide more value than they currently do.
I'd rather have people on welfare than in these bureaucratic jobs that actually hamper progress, because well they need to be 'involved'
I'd rather have people on welfare than in these bureaucratic jobs that actually hamper progress, because well they need to be 'involved'
Indeed. Is a pointless but harmless job worse for society than preventable poverty? I think not.
Is that always the case? No, of course not.
Is that always the case? No, of course not.
People who want the "star trek future" don't seem to understand that, yes, work is valuable in its own right. It's better to work for your meal than have it handed to you. So, a primary concern of society is indeed keeping its people gainfully employed and we see outcomes that would not make sense were this not the case.
[deleted]
What benefits is Texas seeing from the Sunset Commission? https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/ shows a lot of what appear to be wholly spurious licensing types:
- barbering
- cosmetology
- dietitians
- dyslexia therapy
- behavior analysts
- polygraph examiners (!)
- auctioneers
- etc. etc.
- barbering
- cosmetology
- dietitians
- dyslexia therapy
- behavior analysts
- polygraph examiners (!)
- auctioneers
- etc. etc.
> What benefits is Texas seeing from the Sunset Commission? https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/ shows a lot of what appear to be wholly spurious licensing types: [...] - dietitians
[Their site](https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/diet/diet.htm) says that:
> The Dietitians program licenses and regulates dietitians in Texas. A license is required to use the titles "Licensed Dietitian" and "Provisionally Licensed Dietitian." A license is not required to use the titles "Dietitian" or "Nutritionist."
Haven't checked the others, but at least that one seems pretty reasonable.
Also, hospitals tend to have licensed-dietitians to handle stuff like making meal-plans for patients, which is apparently a more involved process than one might think, especially for patients with multiple complications.
[Their site](https://www.tdlr.texas.gov/diet/diet.htm) says that:
> The Dietitians program licenses and regulates dietitians in Texas. A license is required to use the titles "Licensed Dietitian" and "Provisionally Licensed Dietitian." A license is not required to use the titles "Dietitian" or "Nutritionist."
Haven't checked the others, but at least that one seems pretty reasonable.
Also, hospitals tend to have licensed-dietitians to handle stuff like making meal-plans for patients, which is apparently a more involved process than one might think, especially for patients with multiple complications.
I don't see a lot of overlap here and don't understand how they're spurious.
Yeah the polygraph one seem anachronistic, but if people still use them I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.
Yeah the polygraph one seem anachronistic, but if people still use them I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.
> I appreciate the state trying to make sure the practitioners aren't more snake oil-y than the field at large.
What do you imagine you're getting from hypothetical oversight? It is not theoretically possible to be more snake-oily than the field at large.
What do you imagine you're getting from hypothetical oversight? It is not theoretically possible to be more snake-oily than the field at large.
Acupuncture is snake oil, but I would very much prefer knowing that my acupuncturist has been checked out by someone qualified to check their skills. Just because it's snake oil doesn't mean that there are not expectations around its safety and application.
That economists and libertarians hate that cosmetologists have to be licensed is what convinced me they aren't serious thinkers.
Because hepatitis is real.
Same deal with an acupuncturist.
Because hepatitis is real.
Same deal with an acupuncturist.
Food poisoning is real too, and I got a food handling certificate online in 20 minutes for about $20. Is cosmetology that much more complicated (safety-wise; incompetence has its own consequences, same as in the restaurant industry) than food handling? I really have no idea.
It does seem like quite a few of the things that require licenses in Texas would be just as safe with a certificate and random inspections (like they do with food handlers).
It does seem like quite a few of the things that require licenses in Texas would be just as safe with a certificate and random inspections (like they do with food handlers).
Most people cook daily, but have you ever used an autoclave?
> checked out by someone qualified to check their skills
Well sure, we'd all like that. But those of us who have experience dealing with government regulatory bodies (even justifiable ones like building inspectors, fire inspectors, etc.) are skeptical for good reason. The competence of your licensing overlords will vary greatly.
Well sure, we'd all like that. But those of us who have experience dealing with government regulatory bodies (even justifiable ones like building inspectors, fire inspectors, etc.) are skeptical for good reason. The competence of your licensing overlords will vary greatly.
The alternative is private bodies that answer to nobody, or no regulators at all. The remedy to bad government should not be no government, it should be reform and oversight.
Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government do that?
I dunno, why does government do fire safety?
Because then you need an acupuncture badge quality quality badge, and so on.
That implies that we currently need QA organizations who rate government licensure schemes on their accuracy and informativeness. How often have you checked for those?
You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.
You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.
> You've completely failed to distinguish a legal licensure scheme from an independent endorsement scheme.
I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.
I mean, the key difference is that with a market solution you're policing one market with another that's even harder for consumers to evaluate than the first one, and consumer choice is what (supposedly) keeps markets in check, so all you've accomplished is making the situation worse. At least using government changes the mechanism by which we apply pressure to the regulators, and their incentives, rather than presenting a worse version of the same thing, so it has the potential to be an improvement.
Because a private individual or organization has no incentive to create a certification that ensures my safety. Their incentive is profit. The whole point of a government is to have a group unmotivated by profit, whose interests are its citizens.
You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.
You cannot hold someone accountable without a government, because otherwise there's no way to create consequences. Having a private certification authority only adds a layer of indirection.
> Why should the government do that?
Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead.
For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge.
But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions.
Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.
Free-market dynamics require a lot of intellectual overhead.
For example, in a theoretical world with unbound computation and information-sharing, all stocks on the stock-market should be perfectly priced, and all doctors should be of known qualities. And all of those supplements in the pharmacy should be of known effect, and priced perfectly given that knowledge.
But in more limited contexts, where folks don't have infinite free information and computation, centralized authorities can help provide standards. For example, if you go to a licensed medical-doctor, then you may not know their exact quality, but at least you can generally infer that they're competent enough that the state hasn't yanked their license. Ditto for most other licensed professions.
Anyway, to answer your question: the government does it because it's too costly for everyone to do it themselves. When that changes -- this is, when consumers start to acquire a level of knowledge where they can make informed decisions and find government regulation stifling rather than helpful -- then they petition the government to change in response to such new circumstances.
Yes and:
> intellectual overhead
aka transaction costs.
Licensing, credentials, certification are just the cost of doing business. Open markets are built on transparency, accountability, fair rules, impartial referees, etc.
Sure, it all sucks. The alternative is worse.
> intellectual overhead
aka transaction costs.
Licensing, credentials, certification are just the cost of doing business. Open markets are built on transparency, accountability, fair rules, impartial referees, etc.
Sure, it all sucks. The alternative is worse.
Why should these not be licensed?
A dietitian giving bad advice could cause serious harm.
A dyslexia therapist could provide no benefit to the patient.
A cosmetologist could cause someone's hair to fall out.
Like, having something deeper than yelp reviews to help make someone's hair not fall out seems reasonable...
A dietitian giving bad advice could cause serious harm.
A dyslexia therapist could provide no benefit to the patient.
A cosmetologist could cause someone's hair to fall out.
Like, having something deeper than yelp reviews to help make someone's hair not fall out seems reasonable...
You don't have enough personal experience perhaps to know licensing is more about power and protectionist rakets than the claimed purpose.
My dad was a doctor who lost his license (nothing dramatic or gossip-worthy involved). He was primarily treating opiate addicts with something called Suboxone. It is sensitive enough that the state puts a hard limit on patients you can have - 100. This means people who need the treatment are often on waiting lists because the doctors who have the qualification to write Suboxone are often at their 100 patient limit. Father told the medical board they need to find placements for his 100 patients or they will end up dead WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Medical board couldn't give two shits since that's not their problem, last we know at least three died within 4 months or so of not being able to find a new doctor.
My dad was a doctor who lost his license (nothing dramatic or gossip-worthy involved). He was primarily treating opiate addicts with something called Suboxone. It is sensitive enough that the state puts a hard limit on patients you can have - 100. This means people who need the treatment are often on waiting lists because the doctors who have the qualification to write Suboxone are often at their 100 patient limit. Father told the medical board they need to find placements for his 100 patients or they will end up dead WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Medical board couldn't give two shits since that's not their problem, last we know at least three died within 4 months or so of not being able to find a new doctor.
The solution to regulatory capture is to abolish regulations?
Right. Specific regulations can be bad and implemented poorly. That is a far jump from no regulations.
lol - the problem is these laws restrict far more than they help. Just look at AB-5 in CA - lobbyist driven legislation full of unintended consequences that, amusingly, bit a lot of people in the press (who were pushing it) in the ass since it severely limited what they could do as a freelancer vs. an employee.
All the other licensing requirements do is favor incumbents and restrict competition. Amazon was against paying local sales taxes - until they eventually figured it out; now they are a huge proponent for forcing all online retailers to have to collect all local taxes. Will squeeze out the little guys or drive them into their web store solutions.
Regulations rarely benefit small business or their customers.
Also who seriously pays attention to if someone has a license or not? You can still get a bad haircut or advice from a licensed person. What I find appalling is the more rigorous the licensing the less some people question the people who hold them. Indeed, it's now a thing to criticize any critical thinking around "experts" (such as the anointed one, Saint Fauci) - utterly disgusting.
All the other licensing requirements do is favor incumbents and restrict competition. Amazon was against paying local sales taxes - until they eventually figured it out; now they are a huge proponent for forcing all online retailers to have to collect all local taxes. Will squeeze out the little guys or drive them into their web store solutions.
Regulations rarely benefit small business or their customers.
Also who seriously pays attention to if someone has a license or not? You can still get a bad haircut or advice from a licensed person. What I find appalling is the more rigorous the licensing the less some people question the people who hold them. Indeed, it's now a thing to criticize any critical thinking around "experts" (such as the anointed one, Saint Fauci) - utterly disgusting.
The initial motivation for the licensing of medical doctors was to put minority doctors out of business.
See "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech.
See "Competition and Monopoly in Medical Care" by Frech.
The requirement to have a license for these types of fields is reasonable.
What tends to happen, however, is that the requirements to acquire a license grow beyond basic health and safety to include a ton of formal education. This is probably due in part to the fact that practitioners are well represented among the people designing the licensing requirements, and they have a vested interest in erecting and maintaining barriers to new entrants.
For example, it typically takes 1,500 hours of instruction to become licensed to cut peoples hair in exchange for money. That amount of training might be reasonable for someone working with potentially harmful chemicals, but on the other hand I can give someone a pretty decent buzzcut and have approximately zero hours of training (but would still face civil penalties if I were to open Frankus' Buzzcut Studio).
It's also worth noting that licensing doesn't necessarily have to be enforced by the state, (although I agree that basic knowledge of the health and safety aspects of an occupation is probably a reasonable requirement to be state-enforced).
You could have a private credentialing agency that certifies practitioners who have completed additional study or exams, or have a certain minimum amount of experience (something along the lines of Microsoft's MCSE credential, but for, say, applying makeup).
What tends to happen, however, is that the requirements to acquire a license grow beyond basic health and safety to include a ton of formal education. This is probably due in part to the fact that practitioners are well represented among the people designing the licensing requirements, and they have a vested interest in erecting and maintaining barriers to new entrants.
For example, it typically takes 1,500 hours of instruction to become licensed to cut peoples hair in exchange for money. That amount of training might be reasonable for someone working with potentially harmful chemicals, but on the other hand I can give someone a pretty decent buzzcut and have approximately zero hours of training (but would still face civil penalties if I were to open Frankus' Buzzcut Studio).
It's also worth noting that licensing doesn't necessarily have to be enforced by the state, (although I agree that basic knowledge of the health and safety aspects of an occupation is probably a reasonable requirement to be state-enforced).
You could have a private credentialing agency that certifies practitioners who have completed additional study or exams, or have a certain minimum amount of experience (something along the lines of Microsoft's MCSE credential, but for, say, applying makeup).
That's fine, but require 0 dollars for the license, and yearly fee.
I sometimes think they want to license everything because it brings in a fair amount of money in fees.
I sometimes think they want to license everything because it brings in a fair amount of money in fees.
The commission requires the legislature to act. It doesn't prevent the legislature from acting irresponsibly. But at least that irresponsible act will have some names on it that voters might recognize.
Do they still require a license for strippers? I always thought it would be entertaining to be a Texas licensed exotic dancer.
Looks like some of these might be going away soon. Check out HB1560:
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB01560F...
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB01560F...
Love this. I also have a silly question; is the sunset commission subject to the same principle?
Sort of: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/about-us/frequently-asked-quest...
And I had a mistake in my timing, it's every 12 years.
And I had a mistake in my timing, it's every 12 years.
Who chaos monkeys the chaos monkey?
Qui conturbat turbatores accingi
From "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett: "Quis custodiet custard?"
Yeah...
Texas is pretty big on licensure. Surveyors sit at the top for historic reasons. All that land you know. And there’s big money that gives a shit about surveying out in Texas…little money too.
Texas takes government Texas Ranger seriously.
Texas takes government Texas Ranger seriously.
This is great. I've had this idea myself but for major legislation in general. A checkup on any new federal law first 2 years later, then 4, then every 8, or maybe a provision to allow a longer time after enough successive affirmations. Congress could live with their easy jobs getting a bit harder.
The affordable care act would have been killed under that and replaced with nothing.
While in principle checking in on laws seems nice, a mandatory review deadline or it goes away would not be a viable solution in our current political climate.
But even in a more ideal climate, it seems that Congress would be tied up with the reviews and have no time to actually address new or contemporary issues.
Perhaps if it was structured so that a small percentage of laws were randomly selected and some check was enacted so that a minority couldn’t easily kill the law.
While in principle checking in on laws seems nice, a mandatory review deadline or it goes away would not be a viable solution in our current political climate.
But even in a more ideal climate, it seems that Congress would be tied up with the reviews and have no time to actually address new or contemporary issues.
Perhaps if it was structured so that a small percentage of laws were randomly selected and some check was enacted so that a minority couldn’t easily kill the law.
> The affordable care act would have been killed under that and replaced with nothing
But potentially also the NFA, Marijuana prohibition, and much more.
Overwhelming congress gives states more impetus to solve their own problems instead of let the federal government be so bloated.
But potentially also the NFA, Marijuana prohibition, and much more.
Overwhelming congress gives states more impetus to solve their own problems instead of let the federal government be so bloated.
How often do they actually abolish something vs. rubber stamping their approval?
If something is disbanded, how often was it due to a legitimate issue of not being necessary, and how often to satisfy a political grudge, bias, or simple lack of understanding by non-expert politicians?
I like this idea in theory, but I'd also like to know more of what the results have been in actual practice because there seem to be multiple failure modes.
If something is disbanded, how often was it due to a legitimate issue of not being necessary, and how often to satisfy a political grudge, bias, or simple lack of understanding by non-expert politicians?
I like this idea in theory, but I'd also like to know more of what the results have been in actual practice because there seem to be multiple failure modes.
The US was actually founded with the idea that this should be done to the entire constitution every couple of decades.
Apparently the traditional law of Iceland required a guy to appear every year and recite the law. Whatever he forgot to include was no longer the law.
Honestly this seems prime for abuse, letting that one guy decide to "forget" what he doesn't like.
I believe Jefferson abandoned the idea after seeing how hard passing the first one was, too much overhead. I've always fantasized about the idea as a way to guarantee continuous buy-in from the living population of a community.
After all, why shouldn't each generation choose how it is to govern itself? Sins of the Fathers and so on...
Because each generation doesn't just govern itself. Also, how old should that generation be before they can decide which fences to take down without understanding whey they were put up in the first place?
Ironically the US has the oldest constitution of any sovereign state[0]. Beats Norway (the second oldest) by 26 years.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_constitutions
Depends what you're counting as a constitution. San Marino has the US beat for oldest written and still active constitutional documents by 190 years.
The UK has an uncodified constitution that predates the US by over 500 years, originally founded on the Magna Carta, signed in 1215.
The UK has an uncodified constitution that predates the US by over 500 years, originally founded on the Magna Carta, signed in 1215.
[citation needed]
https://oll.libertyfund.org/quote/thomas-jefferson-on-whethe...
> The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion.
> The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19. years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.
I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion.
To some extent this famous quote is just sour grapes: Jefferson wasn't much involved in the drafting or passing of the US Constitution, so naturally he was not as attached to it as the other founders. Note that this was a letter written from France.
Thomas Jefferson’s opinion on this issue doesn’t mean “The US was founded on this principle”.
If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution.
If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution.
> If the US were founded on this principle… it would have been part of the constitution.
If that were true, we wouldn't have had the first block of amendments. There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the original constitution because the founders thought it was obvious.
If that were true, we wouldn't have had the first block of amendments. There's plenty of stuff that didn't make it into the original constitution because the founders thought it was obvious.
There's a long standing philosophy that pretty much any and all ideas in the founder's heads are viable as founding principles. Otherwise what good is mining their journals and letters and their acquaintances journals and letters in a continuous attempt to understand what they thought was critical for a society to function.
This largely ignores the rest of society and what they were thinking. From the first perspective, these are all ideas that got smuggled in.
This largely ignores the rest of society and what they were thinking. From the first perspective, these are all ideas that got smuggled in.
It also ignores the significant disagreements the founders had amongst themselves.
This one of the principles of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK: No Parliament can bind a future parliament. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
Didn't the UK establish a Supreme Court in 2009 with the power to bind Parliament?
I don't believe that UK's Supreme Court can override direct actions by Parliament[1]. They can override "secondary legislation", regulations created by ministers using authority that Parliament gave them, but in that capacity they are ensuring that ministers follow the laws that Parliament created, not acting to reign in Parliament.
They can also declare that legislation violates human rights, but that declaration is non-binding. They are effectively just asking Parliament to go back and fix the law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
They can also declare that legislation violates human rights, but that declaration is non-binding. They are effectively just asking Parliament to go back and fix the law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Ki...
> I think Thomas Jefferson is a reputable source for my assertion.
You need more than one because the founding of the US was a group effort. Not all ideas pitched by any given founder made it in, and even when one did many of those who voted to include it had a different understanding of what it meant.
You need more than one because the founding of the US was a group effort. Not all ideas pitched by any given founder made it in, and even when one did many of those who voted to include it had a different understanding of what it meant.
That's utterly incompatible with Common Law, unfortunately.
How so?
Every so often the foundations of common law get to be re-evaluated which could be disastrous. But in practice it's likely the foundations would be similar cycle to cycle. Further, to the degree that the roots of rulings change due to a new constitution, don't those ruling trees need to change? The constitution changing is a signal that the people, their needs and their values have changed and so should all rulings based on those ideas.
--As an aside, I'm biased against common law. I appreciate my ancestors but I question accepting all of their prior decisions as taken until proven otherwise.
Every so often the foundations of common law get to be re-evaluated which could be disastrous. But in practice it's likely the foundations would be similar cycle to cycle. Further, to the degree that the roots of rulings change due to a new constitution, don't those ruling trees need to change? The constitution changing is a signal that the people, their needs and their values have changed and so should all rulings based on those ideas.
--As an aside, I'm biased against common law. I appreciate my ancestors but I question accepting all of their prior decisions as taken until proven otherwise.
For the same reason that you can't just make changes to a codebase without understanding its structure. Rewriting the Constitution also means throwing away 200 years of Supreme Court decisions.
It's easy to envision invaliding precedents that rely on things that have changed, but the process of creating those precedents takes so long nobody really knows what the new law means until it's tested. Furthermore, the arguments to invalidate them are also going to be in the form of more legal arguments, so you're adding another whole dimension to the problem. Given how opaque the law is to the average person right now, I'd say we're already at the limit.
FWIW I'm biased against common law too, because it seems to take what is actually policy and brand it as if it were universal truth.
It's easy to envision invaliding precedents that rely on things that have changed, but the process of creating those precedents takes so long nobody really knows what the new law means until it's tested. Furthermore, the arguments to invalidate them are also going to be in the form of more legal arguments, so you're adding another whole dimension to the problem. Given how opaque the law is to the average person right now, I'd say we're already at the limit.
FWIW I'm biased against common law too, because it seems to take what is actually policy and brand it as if it were universal truth.
That’s very good.
I would like to see the feds do similar with executive offices.
I’d also like to see these for charities
I’d also like to see it for non-profits.
Often their original intent or charter does not reflect their current state.
Often it’s inertia and people wanting to perpetuate these organizations that keep them going morphing them beyond their original intent.
I would like to see the feds do similar with executive offices.
I’d also like to see these for charities
I’d also like to see it for non-profits.
Often their original intent or charter does not reflect their current state.
Often it’s inertia and people wanting to perpetuate these organizations that keep them going morphing them beyond their original intent.
So when is ERCOT's tenure due? Moste useless of the useless.
2022-2023: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports/agencies/pu...
Texas Leg passed legislation in 2011 to have ERCOT reviewed whenever the PUC (its regulator) is reviewed: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports/agencies/el...
Texas Leg passed legislation in 2011 to have ERCOT reviewed whenever the PUC (its regulator) is reviewed: https://www.sunset.texas.gov/reviews-and-reports/agencies/el...
hhfnkyfvj(1)
I wonder if all laws should have such a thing.
I would suggest that for laws, it should be the other way around.
The longer a law has been in place, more care needs to be taken in changing it. (not that it should not be changed )
The longer a law has been in place, more care needs to be taken in changing it. (not that it should not be changed )
Exponential backoff but for laws
They should.
Brilliant. I wish they had this in the UK. Seems like a great way to keep government size in check.
The UK’s equivalent plan is that every couple of decades it will flip-flop on being a member of the EU.
CPUC exists to regulate electric companies. However it’s corrupt and is a pawn of the electric companies.
Realistically a law that requires a majority vote to continue the agency is better. That way if something in government cannot muster say 60% of the vote. It’s abolished.
Realistically a law that requires a majority vote to continue the agency is better. That way if something in government cannot muster say 60% of the vote. It’s abolished.
This is great! Should really apply to laws as well.
How can this be relevant when Texas has exactly the same issue about the term 'engineer'?
More specifically, 20 years ago I remember learning Texas had some of the strictest laws on using the term "engineer". You could not call yourself a "software engineer" in Texas if you have were been licensed by the state. https://www.chron.com/news/article/Law-to-decide-if-programm...
Now, my knowledge is 20 years of date, and Texas law appears to now allow "engineer" in a business card of a software engineer[1], but my point is that the Texas Board of Professional Engineers would be the one to determine things like this, and I see no way that that board (a "self-directed semi-independent agency of the State of Texas") would be discontinued under the Sunset Commission.
Therefore, I don't see how that mechanism could be use to cut down on this specific type of abuse.
[1] The current laws are at https://engineers.texas.gov/downloads/enf_pub.pdf .
> Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:(1) “engineer”;(2) “professional engineer”;(3) “licensed engineer”;(4) “registered engineer”;(5) “registered professional engineer”;(6) “licensed professional engineer”; or (7) “engineered.” ...
> (f) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not: (1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or (2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.
It looks like (f) was added 20 years ago, and it allows someone to say they are a software engineer on a business card. Exception (f) does not allow a non-licensed engineer to say they are an engineer when an expert witness in a court case.
More specifically, 20 years ago I remember learning Texas had some of the strictest laws on using the term "engineer". You could not call yourself a "software engineer" in Texas if you have were been licensed by the state. https://www.chron.com/news/article/Law-to-decide-if-programm...
Now, my knowledge is 20 years of date, and Texas law appears to now allow "engineer" in a business card of a software engineer[1], but my point is that the Texas Board of Professional Engineers would be the one to determine things like this, and I see no way that that board (a "self-directed semi-independent agency of the State of Texas") would be discontinued under the Sunset Commission.
Therefore, I don't see how that mechanism could be use to cut down on this specific type of abuse.
[1] The current laws are at https://engineers.texas.gov/downloads/enf_pub.pdf .
> Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:(1) “engineer”;(2) “professional engineer”;(3) “licensed engineer”;(4) “registered engineer”;(5) “registered professional engineer”;(6) “licensed professional engineer”; or (7) “engineered.” ...
> (f) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not: (1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or (2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.
It looks like (f) was added 20 years ago, and it allows someone to say they are a software engineer on a business card. Exception (f) does not allow a non-licensed engineer to say they are an engineer when an expert witness in a court case.
I think that would be a wonderful thing to implement federally. I believe that one thing most rational people can agree on is that government spending is out of control. Causing there to be fewer pockets for taxes to fill could be very beneficial in the long term, especially if you support social programs to help the less fortunate.
love it!
is there a Sunset Commission for the Sunset Commission? :-)
is there a Sunset Commission for the Sunset Commission? :-)
I've often thought that a 60% majority should be required to pass new laws, and 50% to repeal them.
Useless bureaucracy hinders innovation and progress.
I live in Spain where engineering is very regulated. This results in some engineers spending 6+ years in university to gain the same status as their international peers who studied for 3 or 4 years.
There's no point in enforcing this other than collecting fees to pay the salaries of people who don't really do anything.
I live in Spain where engineering is very regulated. This results in some engineers spending 6+ years in university to gain the same status as their international peers who studied for 3 or 4 years.
There's no point in enforcing this other than collecting fees to pay the salaries of people who don't really do anything.
There is a point to enforcing it, but sometimes it is way overdone.
It is a license to speak truth about a profession and perform it. Making bullshit illegal. It works for certain professions where the individual can be a commodity and the customer can't reliably determine the trust themselves.
When you're designing bridges or homes or public infrastructure, a lot of times it can be very difficult to pick a good expert (which is necessary, these things can screw up and end lives and waste billions), so you have professional organizations which do the verification for you. Somebody else makes the "hiring decision" which is fine.
But if you lose focus of what the purpose is, you get bureaucratic zealots who follow regulations without any attention to what they are for.
It is a license to speak truth about a profession and perform it. Making bullshit illegal. It works for certain professions where the individual can be a commodity and the customer can't reliably determine the trust themselves.
When you're designing bridges or homes or public infrastructure, a lot of times it can be very difficult to pick a good expert (which is necessary, these things can screw up and end lives and waste billions), so you have professional organizations which do the verification for you. Somebody else makes the "hiring decision" which is fine.
But if you lose focus of what the purpose is, you get bureaucratic zealots who follow regulations without any attention to what they are for.
You do make a good point. It makes me think of the occasional video of a registered nurse standing in front of a City Council saying things like vaccines cause Autism, or the COVID-19 vaccine has tracking chips in it.
Seeing that makes me think that they should lose their license, which goes against the feeling I feel in this engineers case.
That makes me worry that I'm making my decision based on if I think what they're saying is correct or not, not if they should have the right to say it.
Seeing that makes me think that they should lose their license, which goes against the feeling I feel in this engineers case.
That makes me worry that I'm making my decision based on if I think what they're saying is correct or not, not if they should have the right to say it.
I think the key is what you get to say while claiming "I am an X, therefore (implicitly) trust what I say"
Whether it's a medical professional, architect, engineer, etc., I don't have a problem with the speech and actions of a person being regulated by a professional organization while they are claiming to be of that profession. i.e. legally protecting the term doctor/nurse/engineer/lawyer/etc. is just fine.
If you are not, you need to make it clear that you are indeed not a licensed professional.
Whether it's a medical professional, architect, engineer, etc., I don't have a problem with the speech and actions of a person being regulated by a professional organization while they are claiming to be of that profession. i.e. legally protecting the term doctor/nurse/engineer/lawyer/etc. is just fine.
If you are not, you need to make it clear that you are indeed not a licensed professional.
The difference is that one of those is not like the others. There really is no such thing as an unlicensed (medical) doctor, nurse, or lawyer. While most engineers are not licensed as such--and PEs don't even exist for many branches of engineering. Of course, they can't say they're PEs if they're not but there really isn't a default assumption, aside from perhaps in civil engineering, that an engineer asserting expertise in something is licensed.
In Canada it's more like the former -- you aren't allowed to even call yourself an engineer unless you have a P. Eng.
Fair enough. I was talking US where PEs are fairly rare outside of civil engineering and other subsets of engineering that deal with regulatory bodies a lot.
Generally in the US engineer is used pretty loosely. Some states are stricter. But even those who are, like apparently Texas, my first-hand experience is that most people don't pay much attention.
Generally in the US engineer is used pretty loosely. Some states are stricter. But even those who are, like apparently Texas, my first-hand experience is that most people don't pay much attention.
Should the nurses lose their license if there is an element of truth to what they are saying? For example, vaccines probably don't cause autism, but it's possible they could be an aggravating factor. Further research necessary.
>Further research necessary.
The autism link to vaccines isn't at the "further research necessary" stage, it is at the "not absolutely impossible but much evidence against" stage.
The only reason the link exists at all is that vaccines and first signs of autism can happen at similar times and often a vaccine will make a person/small child briefly feel unwell which gets pointed to as a "first sign" because humans find patterns where there aren't any and want something, anything to blame instead of not knowing.
The autism link to vaccines isn't at the "further research necessary" stage, it is at the "not absolutely impossible but much evidence against" stage.
The only reason the link exists at all is that vaccines and first signs of autism can happen at similar times and often a vaccine will make a person/small child briefly feel unwell which gets pointed to as a "first sign" because humans find patterns where there aren't any and want something, anything to blame instead of not knowing.
Until it's absolutely impossible, further research is necessary. Who knows? It could be a combination of things. Perhaps vaccines are not aggravating factors by themselves; maybe you also need to combine them with, I don't know, Tylenol or another pain killer.
Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
>Until it's absolutely impossible, further research is necessary.
There is no such thing, you can study something until the heat death of the Universe and still have a nonzero uncertainty.
>Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
There is a wide gap between "further research is necessary" and "the science is settled" and you seem to be arguing on both sides depending on if that argument is in favor of the autism link. The link stopped being an interesting or pressing scientific question, the necessity or urgency of continuing to research it is quite low and anyone making funding decisions would be wise to allocate mostly elsewhere. There's no problem with continuing to search if a research group wants, researching unpopular questions is important, but let's not misrepresent the state of the research and the reasonable conclusions which can be drawn from the data. "further research necessary" is a phrase that evokes a sense that there is little evidence on which to base conclusions, there may be a hint of an effect, perhaps with contradictory evidence. This is not the case for the autism link, there is indeed a large statistically sound corpus of evidence pointing in the "no link" direction.
There is no such thing, you can study something until the heat death of the Universe and still have a nonzero uncertainty.
>Saying the equivalent of "the science is settled" is always not true because how could we possibly know all of the variables that matter. And in science, all factors matter.
There is a wide gap between "further research is necessary" and "the science is settled" and you seem to be arguing on both sides depending on if that argument is in favor of the autism link. The link stopped being an interesting or pressing scientific question, the necessity or urgency of continuing to research it is quite low and anyone making funding decisions would be wise to allocate mostly elsewhere. There's no problem with continuing to search if a research group wants, researching unpopular questions is important, but let's not misrepresent the state of the research and the reasonable conclusions which can be drawn from the data. "further research necessary" is a phrase that evokes a sense that there is little evidence on which to base conclusions, there may be a hint of an effect, perhaps with contradictory evidence. This is not the case for the autism link, there is indeed a large statistically sound corpus of evidence pointing in the "no link" direction.
There is no gap between "the science is settled" and "further research is necessary". Either it is settled, or research is necessary.
I am not arguing that vaccines could cause autism. What I am arguing is that we don't know what causes autism and that we don't know if vaccines are an aggravating factor. That seems like an important question to me.
By the way, there can be a "large statistically sound corpus of evidence" for "no link" and still be wrong. Most importantly, all of that evidence could have missed important factors.
But beyond that point, as the medical field has lied to us more and more this past year, I no longer take what they say at face value. I dig in myself. And while they have convinced me that there is no direct link, they haven't convinced me that vaccines are definitely not an aggravating factor.
I am not arguing that vaccines could cause autism. What I am arguing is that we don't know what causes autism and that we don't know if vaccines are an aggravating factor. That seems like an important question to me.
By the way, there can be a "large statistically sound corpus of evidence" for "no link" and still be wrong. Most importantly, all of that evidence could have missed important factors.
But beyond that point, as the medical field has lied to us more and more this past year, I no longer take what they say at face value. I dig in myself. And while they have convinced me that there is no direct link, they haven't convinced me that vaccines are definitely not an aggravating factor.
Why should they lose their license? They don't need to understand the mechanics of vaccines or immunity to be a proficient nurse, as long as the standard of care they provide follows recommendations and they listen to the doctors around them regarding patient care.
What benefit is there? One fewer person in a critical role due to an incredibly punitive decision is obvious downside. It's like sending someone to jail for a speeding ticket. Absolute fucking madness.
What benefit is there? One fewer person in a critical role due to an incredibly punitive decision is obvious downside. It's like sending someone to jail for a speeding ticket. Absolute fucking madness.
The nurse was using their profession as a credential in order to give dubious healthcare advice, this is a strong signal that they may be giving other equally questionable advice in their professional setting which is a risk to the patients they are supposed to be serving and a liability to their employer.
The benefit would be if the downside of having one fewer person doing that work is less than the downside of multiple people hearing wrong advice from someone whose license implies they won't talk nonsense about healthcare.
I've no clue myself where the line should be drawn, but there's at least a debate to be had (by people who understand the scenarios a lot better than me). For example, would you say the same about a nurse who tells every patient they see that smoking cigarettes is the best way to prevent cancer, even if apart from constantly saying that they were doing a fine job in other areas?
I've no clue myself where the line should be drawn, but there's at least a debate to be had (by people who understand the scenarios a lot better than me). For example, would you say the same about a nurse who tells every patient they see that smoking cigarettes is the best way to prevent cancer, even if apart from constantly saying that they were doing a fine job in other areas?
Well, is she advising her patients not to get vaccines? Because then she's not following the guidelines for standard of care.
Ok, edit my hypothetical person to not advising their patients, but standing at the hospital entrance after their shift telling all other patients that cigarettes are good for you.
But that's not what's happening either. Why don't we represent the reality with itself. She's expressing an idea publicly that she thinks is important for public safety. She is not hurting her patients by doing this. Idiots are dangerous, but the cure is worse than the disease, if the cure is to destroy people for non-violently expressing their concerns genuinely doing what they believe is in the best interest of the community.
I'm not going to pretend to have an answer for what we should do about people like her, but I do know that destroying their lives (squashing genuine, well meaning dissent) is not the answer.
I'm not going to pretend to have an answer for what we should do about people like her, but I do know that destroying their lives (squashing genuine, well meaning dissent) is not the answer.
Right, as I said in my first comment I don't consider myself able to judge where the line should be drawn regarding this real person, so I created a hypothetical person to see if you still believed it would be ridiculous to fire any nurse for anything they say outside work hours.
Yes, if she's giving her patients bad medical advice that goes contrary to accepted best practices then she should be asked to stop or find work elsewhere. And if she's standing in the hallway doing the same with people who aren't her patients she could probably be safely fired for being a nuisance. There are appropriate public forums for disagreement and in the hallway of your hospital is probably not it.
Your honest view is that if a nurse is committing medical malpractice the furthest extent of punishment should be "find work elsewhere"?
You are using quite an uncharitable interpretation of what I actually said. Elsewhere being not necessarily a hospital, in this case, but at best a hospital that agrees with her medical advice.
Or are you proposing that she be thrown on the streets, jailed, exhiled, or executed? What do you propose? I too can be uncharitable but that probably doesn't lead to productive conversation.
Or are you proposing that she be thrown on the streets, jailed, exhiled, or executed? What do you propose? I too can be uncharitable but that probably doesn't lead to productive conversation.
Engineering licenses aren't about innovation or progress. They're about making sure that the same lessons aren't constantly relearned at great cost to customers and society.
Pretty much. If an engineer is in a bubble of software engineering, it's easy to forget there are other engineering professions where a lack of ethics or a poor understanding of engineering gets people killed or causes damage. For most of the people here on HN, getting a license doesn't really matter much- they fall under the umbrella exception, so they can call themselves engineers. The license indicates some floor of engineering competency, which I think is fair. I can't speak for other engineering disciplines, but I aced the computer engineering exam with minimal preparation and sleep. Having 50% fail rates is not uncommon for these exams- do people really want engineers with a bad grasp of the basics making critical design decisions?
Software gets people killed and causes huge amounts of damage, too. However, software developers are protected legally and socially from liability for their actions.
Hence the one-sided nature of the comments here.
Hence the one-sided nature of the comments here.
Of course it's corporate corruption of government that is driving this case.
"he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believes to be engineering mistakes. He has written letters to state and county governments and testified before a county commission. But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes"
If he were telling lies, he would be legally accountable to the individuals or companies that his lies harmed. That would probably be an easy case to bring against him to stop him from telling lies. But this approach of trying to silence him on grounds of not technically being an engineer shows plainly that he is telling enough truth that he wouldn't be accountable for lying and causing harm.
Cases like this are probably common, although the methods of silencing vary from situation to situation. While the US may not be as corrupt as many other countries, it still has a significant amount which ultimately harms the general public and certainly harms the few individuals that find themselves on the wrong side of a corrupt authority.
"he is an engineer at heart and speaks up when he sees people make what he believes to be engineering mistakes. He has written letters to state and county governments and testified before a county commission. But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes"
If he were telling lies, he would be legally accountable to the individuals or companies that his lies harmed. That would probably be an easy case to bring against him to stop him from telling lies. But this approach of trying to silence him on grounds of not technically being an engineer shows plainly that he is telling enough truth that he wouldn't be accountable for lying and causing harm.
Cases like this are probably common, although the methods of silencing vary from situation to situation. While the US may not be as corrupt as many other countries, it still has a significant amount which ultimately harms the general public and certainly harms the few individuals that find themselves on the wrong side of a corrupt authority.
The ACLU has abandoned its defense of free speech in the US; I'm glad to see IJ taking up the mantle.
Earlier this week, the ACLU published this[0] article, "The Problem With Censoring Political Speech Online – Including Trump’s". More substantively, they recently filed a brief[1] supporting Americans for Prosperity (the Koch brothers' primary political advocacy group) fighting against a government demand for donor lists. That's just the stuff I found on the national website with a minute or two of looking around—I didn't even dig into what state ACLU groups are doing, and they do the bulk of litigation. Abandoned free speech they have not.
[0] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censo...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-...
[0] https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censo...
[1] https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/prosperity-foundation-v-...
A counterpoint: https://archive.is/tL7Rj (NY Times)
In this case he was speaking as an expert to the jury. I think the real question is who can define who can be an expert to the court. Is it the court or the state that defines the qualifications of the expert. If it is the State who can define who is an expert then the could very well require him to have a license. It is not about what he said but where he said it.
No opinion on whether this is a new development or not, but needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid. By far the majority of engineering work is stating the obvious. Even a novice with some calculus background could probably come to the right answer if they had access to the necessary data. Maybe they'd need a little help warming up. Engineers are just more reliable at getting to the obvious answer, and have made enough mistakes that they double check their calculations.
Licensing laws used against people are more likely to be used for political cover rather than to protect the public.
Licensing laws used against people are more likely to be used for political cover rather than to protect the public.
It depends very much on precisely what you're talking about. Someone giving an opinion on a physical system? Absolutely should not be regulated. Someone giving engineering advice and representing that advice as the result of rigorous analysis and themselves as an authority on the topic? I can see an argument for regulating that.
We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice, and wrong engineering advice is arguably more dangerous than both. (For values of 'engineering' involving 'building heavy machinery, physical infrastructure, etc. which lives depend on - a wrong diagnoses can kill one person, a bad load calc can potentially kill thousands if a stadium collapses. I don't mean giving advice on page layout in CSS needs to be regulated.)
Edit: Note that I'm not saying he should be gagged, and the circumstances definitely need to be considered, just that I understand the reasoning behind standards for advice presented as authoritative. What's going on in TFA more smacks of union protectionism than genuine caution.
We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice, and wrong engineering advice is arguably more dangerous than both. (For values of 'engineering' involving 'building heavy machinery, physical infrastructure, etc. which lives depend on - a wrong diagnoses can kill one person, a bad load calc can potentially kill thousands if a stadium collapses. I don't mean giving advice on page layout in CSS needs to be regulated.)
Edit: Note that I'm not saying he should be gagged, and the circumstances definitely need to be considered, just that I understand the reasoning behind standards for advice presented as authoritative. What's going on in TFA more smacks of union protectionism than genuine caution.
We place similar expectations on legal and medical advice
We do and received terrible medical advice during the latest pandemic while people trying to correct it were getting banned from social media. We are also reaping results of decades of terrible dietary advice.
The track record for censorship isn't great.
We do and received terrible medical advice during the latest pandemic while people trying to correct it were getting banned from social media. We are also reaping results of decades of terrible dietary advice.
The track record for censorship isn't great.
Also very good points. The WHO in particular should face heavy criticism for their early handling (or non-handling) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pretty much everything they said for the first 3 months was about as wrong and harmful as it was possible to be, and seemed entirely driven by political rather than health considerations.
The dietary advice thing is mental the deeper you look into it, too. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! Wait, it was Kelloggs saying that. More than two eggs a day will make you die of heart disease? Apparently not any more. Was that dodgy advice from the pork board or did Big Egg just buy off the right people? Fat is bad for you and makes you fat, says CSR. Actually sugar makes you fat AND causes cancer, but dietary fat is fine, says Brownes Dairy.
The dietary advice thing is mental the deeper you look into it, too. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! Wait, it was Kelloggs saying that. More than two eggs a day will make you die of heart disease? Apparently not any more. Was that dodgy advice from the pork board or did Big Egg just buy off the right people? Fat is bad for you and makes you fat, says CSR. Actually sugar makes you fat AND causes cancer, but dietary fat is fine, says Brownes Dairy.
You're right, the unregulated dietary supplements market looks so much better!
You're trying to mock my comment but schizoid posters on twitter pushing their supplements often do have better dietary advice than USDA. The bar set by credentialed experts is so low, people who likely belong in an institution can clear it.
Unregulated dietary supplements have killed way fewer people than obesity.
Needing a license to talk about anything is really stupid. We have seen credentialed experts trip time and again, succumb to industry pressure, form outright lobbies hostile to public interest.
While there is some value in credentials for quick judgements and floor requirements, there is never an honest reason to bar someone from giving their opinion or testifying. Everyone is always free to not listen or disregard that opinion.
While there is some value in credentials for quick judgements and floor requirements, there is never an honest reason to bar someone from giving their opinion or testifying. Everyone is always free to not listen or disregard that opinion.
I think the issue is he gave expert testimony. So it’s not just speaking about it, but presenting from a position of authority without qualification.
I think the whole expert testimony business is suspect as the definition of “expert” varies so much. But I think the correction is in the law specifying what is expect and not and making that better is the place to focus.
It seems like the correction would be to invalidate his testimony, not to arrest him.
It’s really hard to have legal expert testimony and separate true experts vs people with other motivators (money, family, etc).
I think the whole expert testimony business is suspect as the definition of “expert” varies so much. But I think the correction is in the law specifying what is expect and not and making that better is the place to focus.
It seems like the correction would be to invalidate his testimony, not to arrest him.
It’s really hard to have legal expert testimony and separate true experts vs people with other motivators (money, family, etc).
> presenting from a position of authority without qualification.
You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably relevant credentials demanded by a local regulatory body." His education and career experience are certainly qualifications substantiating his expertise.
From the OP:
> “In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to rather than relying on the government to decide who gets to speak,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “North Carolina’s engineering board is getting that important principle exactly backwards.”
Amen, brother.
For a state or local entity to curtail First Amendment rights, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. There is very little reason to believe that passing tests administered by the local engineering board actually provides any protective value to the public in a context where the person in question is merely criticizing a design (not building anything) and already has extensive hands-on experience in the subject they are speaking on. It's quite possible that, in cases like this, licensing demands mostly exist for the Board to arrogate power and money to itself. The Board must clear a much higher bar to legally punish people for speech.
You mean, "presenting from a position of expertise without very specific and questionably relevant credentials demanded by a local regulatory body." His education and career experience are certainly qualifications substantiating his expertise.
From the OP:
> “In this country, we rely on people to decide who they want to listen to rather than relying on the government to decide who gets to speak,” said IJ Attorney Joe Gay. “North Carolina’s engineering board is getting that important principle exactly backwards.”
Amen, brother.
For a state or local entity to curtail First Amendment rights, they must have a compelling interest in doing so. There is very little reason to believe that passing tests administered by the local engineering board actually provides any protective value to the public in a context where the person in question is merely criticizing a design (not building anything) and already has extensive hands-on experience in the subject they are speaking on. It's quite possible that, in cases like this, licensing demands mostly exist for the Board to arrogate power and money to itself. The Board must clear a much higher bar to legally punish people for speech.
Being a licensed engineer is not a requirement to being an "expert" in expert testimony. You are an expert if the court deems you an expert and the opposing counsel has agreed. Full stop.
I think that the only thing an engineering license should grant you, in this case, is the right to call yourself a licensed engineer, which conveys some degree of authority. I don't think he made that claim.
I think that the only thing an engineering license should grant you, in this case, is the right to call yourself a licensed engineer, which conveys some degree of authority. I don't think he made that claim.
Not sure why people are disagreeing. I've co-written an expert witness report and neither myself nor my co-author were licensed software engineers--which I don't believe you can even get licensed for any longer in the US.
Of course, both the lawyers and the judge can take both credentials and experience into account when evaluating the credibility of such a report.
Obviously, if someone isn't licensed they can't present themselves as being licensed and various regulatory agencies and the like may require someone to be licensed in order to sign off on various documents.
Of course, both the lawyers and the judge can take both credentials and experience into account when evaluating the credibility of such a report.
Obviously, if someone isn't licensed they can't present themselves as being licensed and various regulatory agencies and the like may require someone to be licensed in order to sign off on various documents.
The computer engineering exam contains software engineering components fwiw.
Perfect summary. Nicely written.
"...needing a license to talk about engineering is really stupid..."
Not to "talk about engineering". To provide expert testimony as an engineer.
Not to "talk about engineering". To provide expert testimony as an engineer.
It would make learning to be an engineer pretty difficult, if you can't talk about stuff until you are qualified!
North Carolina is notorious for this behavior. They tried to tell a man He could not talk with friends about his diabetes, and recommend foods they should eat. They were sued and had to settle. The state tried to say that only a dentist can do teeth whitening. They were sued (by the FTC) and lost. You should not need a license to talk with another individual about whatever you want. Should this man be allowed to testify in court without a license? Absolutely. It’s up to the court to decide his credibility and expertise, and allow it or disallow it. Not a government board.
The framing of the title is a bit disingenuous. He is not “talking” about engineering to a bunch of college students. He is providing expert opinion in a court case. This is a whole different deal and I think there is nuance here.
Honestly, I don’t like the manipulation with the title and how they are framing the whole thing. Makes me cautious about emitting an opinion.
Honestly, I don’t like the manipulation with the title and how they are framing the whole thing. Makes me cautious about emitting an opinion.
In the article it says he declared that he wasn’t a licensed engineer. At most, you could argue that his expert testimony is not valid, saying that it is illegal it is a whole different deal. It smells like corruption of the NC government to me.
"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.
Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement.
So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice.
> In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.”
> By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.
So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice.
> In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.”
> By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.
§ 89C-25. Limitations on application of Chapter. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...)
"(4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." is, I think, the only one to apply.
"(4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." is, I think, the only one to apply.
His exemption makes his field of practice much more limited than a fully licensed engineer and didn't seem to cover making legal advice in court. Court experts should indeed be held to high standards. At this point, being called an engineer is just semantics. In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees.
> In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees
But as the grandparent comment you responded to explained, he isn't calling himself that, because he declared that he wasn't a licensed engineer. Shouldn't the court be able to decide whether to accept him as an expert witness?
But as the grandparent comment you responded to explained, he isn't calling himself that, because he declared that he wasn't a licensed engineer. Shouldn't the court be able to decide whether to accept him as an expert witness?
> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way.
Yeah, it sounds like something the opposition's lawyer should try to prevent being accepted as expert witness testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen "My Cousin Vinny" so I understand that there are procedures for doing this.
On the other hand, maybe the opposition's lawyer wasn't able to prevent the witness from being accepted as an expert because the witness actually was an expert and ought to have been accepted as an expert, in spite of not being a doctor. Maybe she was a professor of pharmacology or something. Thus she could justifiably claim to say with expertise "X drug would be very likely to kill a patient of type T and should not be prescribed to them." But this sounds a lot like medical advice (I mean, a person with condition T who heard the testimony might decide not to take drug X), even though it isn't. It's expert witness testimony.
We try to prevent people from giving medical advice without a license because medical advice tends to be given in private to people who tend to trust it implictly and will thus suffer the consequences of it being dangerously wrong. When medical advice is given in public in front of a hostile enemy lawyer, this is less of a concern.
Yeah, it sounds like something the opposition's lawyer should try to prevent being accepted as expert witness testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen "My Cousin Vinny" so I understand that there are procedures for doing this.
On the other hand, maybe the opposition's lawyer wasn't able to prevent the witness from being accepted as an expert because the witness actually was an expert and ought to have been accepted as an expert, in spite of not being a doctor. Maybe she was a professor of pharmacology or something. Thus she could justifiably claim to say with expertise "X drug would be very likely to kill a patient of type T and should not be prescribed to them." But this sounds a lot like medical advice (I mean, a person with condition T who heard the testimony might decide not to take drug X), even though it isn't. It's expert witness testimony.
We try to prevent people from giving medical advice without a license because medical advice tends to be given in private to people who tend to trust it implictly and will thus suffer the consequences of it being dangerously wrong. When medical advice is given in public in front of a hostile enemy lawyer, this is less of a concern.
[deleted]
> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant."
On a side note, I think you'd be sad to learn how common it is for this to apply to testifying coroners.
On a side note, I think you'd be sad to learn how common it is for this to apply to testifying coroners.
I am not a lawyer but…
§ 89C-23. Unlawful to practice engineering or land surveying without licensure; unlawful use of title or terms; penalties; Attorney General to be legal adviser. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...)
> He is providing expert opinion in a court case
Aren't courts capable of making that decision themselves? Why should the state be allowed to interfere with sworn testimony?
Aren't courts capable of making that decision themselves? Why should the state be allowed to interfere with sworn testimony?
The court did, and the Board accepts that. (See the link from the details of the case.) The board is pointing out that it is a Class 2 misdemeanor to practice engineering without a license (and outside the "industrial exemption").
[deleted]
I started to worry when I saw that he had given a legal deposition. But "Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer". So according to the article, there was no misrepresentation to the court.
Engineering licensure is generally opt-in for activities that require it, and you obviously don't need to be a licensed engineer to testify plainly in court (contrast with signing off on plans for a building, for which you do), so he should be in the clear.
Of course getting this close to what the state board considers their turf (Professional Engineer expert witnesses, whose testimony carries more weight) explains why they're trying to stomp on him - similar to that engineer in Oregon who got legally harassed for a bunch of years for doing math about red light cameras.
Engineering licensure is generally opt-in for activities that require it, and you obviously don't need to be a licensed engineer to testify plainly in court (contrast with signing off on plans for a building, for which you do), so he should be in the clear.
Of course getting this close to what the state board considers their turf (Professional Engineer expert witnesses, whose testimony carries more weight) explains why they're trying to stomp on him - similar to that engineer in Oregon who got legally harassed for a bunch of years for doing math about red light cameras.
I can imagine the Board’s overreach being applied to teaching engineering as well. All my engineering professors certainly had PhDs in engineering (or similar). Yet few if any of them had a PE license.
Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?
Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?
And since this fellow spent probably 30+ years as a practicing engineer, I would think his experience counts for more than someone who got their PE the previous week.
Credentialism lifts up and empowers the mediocre while cutting off discussion. This results in sclerotic professions and oversight authorities which cannot adapt to changing conditions, usually causing far more and worse long-term damage than any short-term issues they prevent. I can only speak for the US, but look around — this is a real issue in medicine, law, and most anywhere you look, and the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years.
> the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years
At least in medicine this isn't the case; the AMA effectively limits the number of positions available. The ratio of doctors to patients has hence been steadily decreasing over the past few decades.
At least in medicine this isn't the case; the AMA effectively limits the number of positions available. The ratio of doctors to patients has hence been steadily decreasing over the past few decades.
This hasn’t been true for decades… it’s one of those “Internet Talking Points” that gets repeated ad nauseam but just isn’t true..
The AMA lobbies intensely for more residency spots and more medical schools and has since at least the debate over the ACA.
The AMA lobbies intensely for more residency spots and more medical schools and has since at least the debate over the ACA.
Why aren't there any more medical schools then? I believe professional schools (law, MBA etc) are historically very profitable for universities so they are (or were) incentivized to open even mediocre ones.
Mostly because they’re extremely expensive to set up.. but even so there are maybe a dozen new ones that have opened in the past 5 years with about that many under discussion to open in the next 5 years. I think the big bottleneck right now is the residency slots, those need Federal funding and they’ve been hesitant.
You're right on that — I was thinking more (and should have specified) supporting professions, such as dietitians.
Licensing boards are for one thing - to issue licenses. If the government further wants to require a license for working on government project, fine.
But to decide a license is needed for anything other than "advertising you have a license" is perverted. Some government official who wants to control people, not keep them safe and organized. Its all about power I guess.
But to decide a license is needed for anything other than "advertising you have a license" is perverted. Some government official who wants to control people, not keep them safe and organized. Its all about power I guess.
I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills.
I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the gov. use PEs to sign off on designs that impact the public when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering.
The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering.
The former would be a problem due to its broadness, but the second would definitely not be.
I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the gov. use PEs to sign off on designs that impact the public when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering.
The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering.
The former would be a problem due to its broadness, but the second would definitely not be.
> The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering.
I don't think that is the main question, the testify vs speak is secondary. He is not a "Licensed Engineer", but he IS an "Engineer" (Graduated Engineering school, and worked legally his whole life as an Engineer in the subset of "engineering" that doesn't require a license). So he is an expert in "Engineering" (the subset) by schooling and legal work experience, and should be able to provide expert testimony on the field where he is an expert. He is not thou, an expert in "Licensed Engineering", so he can't provide expert testimony on that. The question them becomes: The testimony he gave applies to the subset of engineering that is only allowed to a "Licensed Engineer"? Or in other words, would he be forbidden from working on the thing he is testifying about? If the answer is yes, then he broke the law, by presenting himself as an expert Engineer in a matter restricted to licensed, then he wrongly presented himself as licensed. If the answer is no, if the matter discussed is something he was allowed to work on (before he retired) without a license, then there is nothing wrong with his testimony.
I don't think that is the main question, the testify vs speak is secondary. He is not a "Licensed Engineer", but he IS an "Engineer" (Graduated Engineering school, and worked legally his whole life as an Engineer in the subset of "engineering" that doesn't require a license). So he is an expert in "Engineering" (the subset) by schooling and legal work experience, and should be able to provide expert testimony on the field where he is an expert. He is not thou, an expert in "Licensed Engineering", so he can't provide expert testimony on that. The question them becomes: The testimony he gave applies to the subset of engineering that is only allowed to a "Licensed Engineer"? Or in other words, would he be forbidden from working on the thing he is testifying about? If the answer is yes, then he broke the law, by presenting himself as an expert Engineer in a matter restricted to licensed, then he wrongly presented himself as licensed. If the answer is no, if the matter discussed is something he was allowed to work on (before he retired) without a license, then there is nothing wrong with his testimony.
It's usually the licensing board itself that gets to make all these determinations.
The topic of “unauthorized practice of law” was my favorite in the required legal ethics course because it’s really hard to define. There’s definitely a compelling state interest in preventing just anyone from running around giving people shitty legal advice. Bad legal advice could mean someone serving years, or even a lifetime, in prison. But at the same time the people have a right to discuss the law, how it is (and should be) interpreted, and the implications of those interpretations. It’s maybe even more than a right. It’s arguably a requirement of a functional democracy. If you can’t discuss the law you can’t have a role in shaping it
And balancing those two important interests most states have drawn the line at: you can’t tell (or insinuate to) the public you’re a licensed attorney if you’re not and you can’t file legal documents with a court or a regulator on behalf of someone else unless under the supervision of a licensed attorney.
You can, however, spout your terrible and blatantly wrong legal opinion all over the internet, tv, and in print to anyone willing to listen. No law license required. Many people have even made a career of it.
And balancing those two important interests most states have drawn the line at: you can’t tell (or insinuate to) the public you’re a licensed attorney if you’re not and you can’t file legal documents with a court or a regulator on behalf of someone else unless under the supervision of a licensed attorney.
You can, however, spout your terrible and blatantly wrong legal opinion all over the internet, tv, and in print to anyone willing to listen. No law license required. Many people have even made a career of it.
You can read the letter linked in the article: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_051...
It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case.
Quite a bit of framing
It looks to me more the latter: he "helping his son" by "speaking about engineering" is a written report in a court case.
Quite a bit of framing
Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is acceptable. It should not be just a license.
The judge can decide who gets to testify in his own court, but that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license.
>that doesn't preclude a licensing board from sanctioning the witness as practicing without a license
Yes, according to the current law, which is not serving the needs of society well. If an engineer has been working for many years for a company which was not required to have a license, this is already a sufficient proof of qualification and licensing board should not be able to sanction anyone in such case. On the contrary, they should offer a way to obtain a post-factum license either as a result of exam or based on audit of previously implemented projects, and the cost of such license should not be prohibitive, only covering the reasonable share of the expenses of the board.
The purpose of licensing for society is to restrict certain activities only to qualified individuals and businesses to reduce risks of unacceptable damage. This restriction does not imply that a license should be obtained in order to do something, only that there must be a proof of qualification and a license is a sufficient proof. When and how this proof is presented, should not matter, as long as it happens. The law must only create a liability for those people, who cannot present a verifiable proof.
Yes, according to the current law, which is not serving the needs of society well. If an engineer has been working for many years for a company which was not required to have a license, this is already a sufficient proof of qualification and licensing board should not be able to sanction anyone in such case. On the contrary, they should offer a way to obtain a post-factum license either as a result of exam or based on audit of previously implemented projects, and the cost of such license should not be prohibitive, only covering the reasonable share of the expenses of the board.
The purpose of licensing for society is to restrict certain activities only to qualified individuals and businesses to reduce risks of unacceptable damage. This restriction does not imply that a license should be obtained in order to do something, only that there must be a proof of qualification and a license is a sufficient proof. When and how this proof is presented, should not matter, as long as it happens. The law must only create a liability for those people, who cannot present a verifiable proof.
Its very likely that he could have obtained the Professional Engineer license either while working at these industrial companies or afterwards.
He likely did not as it would be an involved process and may require insurance.
He likely did not as it would be an involved process and may require insurance.
If a court decides HN gets mad and wonders why judges get to determine engineering matters. If an engineering board decides HN gets mad and wonders why engineers have a say in legal matters.
You can waffle with "it's not the same part of HN" or something, but honestly it sounds more like a lot of HN just doesn't like anything which might prevent them from offering their opinion in inappropriate contexts, and their mechanism to avoid this is to refuse to let anyone judge the appropriateness of a context.
Big "what's next, a license to toast" energy from all this tbh.
You can waffle with "it's not the same part of HN" or something, but honestly it sounds more like a lot of HN just doesn't like anything which might prevent them from offering their opinion in inappropriate contexts, and their mechanism to avoid this is to refuse to let anyone judge the appropriateness of a context.
Big "what's next, a license to toast" energy from all this tbh.
The „HN gets mad“ generalization is a logical fallacy. Maybe somewhere on some subreddit there is a uniform crowd for which generalization and such meta-comments are ok, but here we have plenty of people who have different opinions, express them and may have disagreements: you cannot put a common label and blame for inconsistency, because you do not have a target for it.
It isn't a logical fallacy. HN has a long history of being against any sort of credentialism. Tell a programmer that he isn't a real engineer in any sense of the word and watch the downvotes flow. Plenty here want titles without effort.
Yeah. The report referenced in that letter seems like the sort of thing that would normally be created or at least signed off by a civil engineering PE. Now, one can stipulate that he was very upfront in the report that he's not a PE and the judge is welcome to judge credibility. But I sort of see where this letter is coming from.
After reading the law, it actually seems to be a clear violation.
He is not a party in the court case so presumably his testimony is that of an expert witness. Providing expert testimony as an engineer sounds an awful lot like practicing engineering. He is not licensed and he is not practicing under the aegis of a licensed firm. He's in violation of the law.
He is not a party in the court case so presumably his testimony is that of an expert witness. Providing expert testimony as an engineer sounds an awful lot like practicing engineering. He is not licensed and he is not practicing under the aegis of a licensed firm. He's in violation of the law.
Licensed professions have such things as "reserved acts". This is the issue at hand. Offering legal engineering advice is apparently protected. It's not only that the the judge should dismiss the opinion if presented, it's that even the act of trying to make one in front of a court is possibly illegal. Disclaimers are irrelevant when one is trying to perform such a reserved act, especially if one knowingly does it while ignoring the law.
If he represented himself as an engineer or engineering expert in a legal proceeding, well, that’s where he may have made a mis-step. Even if it’s on behalf of his son.
Maybe, he should have prefaced every sentence with IANAE, but…
That's what he did (mentioned in the article). He prefaced his testimony with that he was not a licensed engineer but had worked in the industry for many years.
A better question would be whether he had done piping & fluids vs. another civil engineering specialty such as bridge design.
A better question would be whether he had done piping & fluids vs. another civil engineering specialty such as bridge design.
I think this preface should be enough, he didn't claim to be something he isn't.
The fact it's his son makes it looks even more like testimony from convenience rather than professional consideration.
The article's title is misleading. NC does not forbid him to talk engineering. He can write blog posts, yell at the corners, print books. What it does not allow him is to testify as a witness in a court presenting himself as an engineering expert. While I agree this distinction (being licensed) is stupid, the court is within its right to impose it. Spinning this case as some sort free speech supression is just bad jourlalism.
the court is within its right to impose it
There's no problem with the court declining to treat him as an expert witness. This is about the state threatening to arrest him for truthfully describing his experience and opinions.
There's no problem with the court declining to treat him as an expert witness. This is about the state threatening to arrest him for truthfully describing his experience and opinions.
A lot of people seem to be splitting hairs over whether this guy's testimony or report in the trial is or isn't "practicing engineering," and whether that means that he's therefore clearly in violation of the rules and should be punished, or whether this proves that professional licensing is evil and should be abolished.
What's missing is the fact that the conduct in question happened in a courtroom. If I drive over a bridge and it collapses and kills me, I don't get to hire a lawyer and an expert witness from the afterlife and have them try to impeach the credibility of the bridge designer or demonstrate the unsuitability of his plans and, if I manage to convince a jury, I get to be resurrected. Since I can't do this, the state enacted some rules about what kind of qualifications the guy designing the bridge has to have.
But in a courtroom, if I don't like this unlicensed engineer the other side wants to put on the stand, I can try to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can hire my own engineer to help me come up with tricky questions to make a fool of him on the stand and maybe prevent him being accepted as an expert. I can cross-examine him with help from my own engineer to prepare. I can have my own engineer testify to rebut his claims. I have all sorts of options besides causing him to be threatened with violation of professional licensing laws.
The point is that the professional licensing laws exist to protect people in situations like driving over a bridge. They do not exist to protect the public from the risk that unlicensed people may testify in court about engineering, thereby potentially producing injustice. This is because lawyers already exist to do this job, and are extensively trained and licensed to do it. That's why the lawsuit attacks the professional licensing laws as _overbroad_, not inappropriate in the context of certifying people to design bridges and that kind of thing.
What's missing is the fact that the conduct in question happened in a courtroom. If I drive over a bridge and it collapses and kills me, I don't get to hire a lawyer and an expert witness from the afterlife and have them try to impeach the credibility of the bridge designer or demonstrate the unsuitability of his plans and, if I manage to convince a jury, I get to be resurrected. Since I can't do this, the state enacted some rules about what kind of qualifications the guy designing the bridge has to have.
But in a courtroom, if I don't like this unlicensed engineer the other side wants to put on the stand, I can try to prove he doesn't know what he's talking about. I can hire my own engineer to help me come up with tricky questions to make a fool of him on the stand and maybe prevent him being accepted as an expert. I can cross-examine him with help from my own engineer to prepare. I can have my own engineer testify to rebut his claims. I have all sorts of options besides causing him to be threatened with violation of professional licensing laws.
The point is that the professional licensing laws exist to protect people in situations like driving over a bridge. They do not exist to protect the public from the risk that unlicensed people may testify in court about engineering, thereby potentially producing injustice. This is because lawyers already exist to do this job, and are extensively trained and licensed to do it. That's why the lawsuit attacks the professional licensing laws as _overbroad_, not inappropriate in the context of certifying people to design bridges and that kind of thing.
I'm curious to see where this goes. In my personal experience, it is standard practice to need/be requested to submit designs for review by a PE, if you aren't one.
I was originally trained as a materials engineer, and nearly 20 years ago there was no clear PE exam to take for that discipline, so I never considered getting one.
Today, I wouldn't want to be encumbered with the E&O insurance and other restrictions of a PE, and I would have to review extensively to pass the test.
In my professional experience, it has always been nice to have a 3rd party look over your design, and the expense is of no consequence if the customer/law require the review.
For a legal case, I'm not surprised that the barrier of entry for expert testimony might be a PE.
I'd be interested to understand from a lawyer here on HN what the extent of protected speech is in a courtroom situation.
I was originally trained as a materials engineer, and nearly 20 years ago there was no clear PE exam to take for that discipline, so I never considered getting one.
Today, I wouldn't want to be encumbered with the E&O insurance and other restrictions of a PE, and I would have to review extensively to pass the test.
In my professional experience, it has always been nice to have a 3rd party look over your design, and the expense is of no consequence if the customer/law require the review.
For a legal case, I'm not surprised that the barrier of entry for expert testimony might be a PE.
I'd be interested to understand from a lawyer here on HN what the extent of protected speech is in a courtroom situation.
I found this line to be particularly interesting:
> In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.”
A half-minute search on Google didn't seem to produce anything of relevance, but I did come across numerous articles talking about licensing not being needed. Would be curious to see more hard data on the number of un-licensed engineers and if there is any correlation to issues / shoddy work or not.
> In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.”
A half-minute search on Google didn't seem to produce anything of relevance, but I did come across numerous articles talking about licensing not being needed. Would be curious to see more hard data on the number of un-licensed engineers and if there is any correlation to issues / shoddy work or not.
In my experience licensing of engineers is almost exclusive to civil engineering and some other subfields. The vast majority of mechanical, electrical and software engineers will never need to be licensed.
It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE), often the PE will be the one to stamp drawings etc.
It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE), often the PE will be the one to stamp drawings etc.
>It's also possible for unlicensed engineers to work under the supervision of a licensed engineer (PE)
AFAIK, it's required as part of the process of getting a PE.
AFAIK, it's required as part of the process of getting a PE.
At least in Florida, there is an exception:
(from FBPE 61G15, FL Admin Code)
7. Experience should be gained under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer or, if not, an explanation should be made showing why the experience should be considered acceptable.
(from FBPE 61G15, FL Admin Code)
7. Experience should be gained under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer or, if not, an explanation should be made showing why the experience should be considered acceptable.
I worked in a building department. My experience is there is a correlation between unsafe construction and unlicensed individuals.
A large degree of the correlation is lack of experience, so there are corner cases where unlicensed individuals build something safe.
But generally it won’t meet building code and the building code describes the very worst construction that is legal…
…and even that is hard to get right because licensed professionals struggle with it all the time and that’s why I was reviewing plans.
A large degree of the correlation is lack of experience, so there are corner cases where unlicensed individuals build something safe.
But generally it won’t meet building code and the building code describes the very worst construction that is legal…
…and even that is hard to get right because licensed professionals struggle with it all the time and that’s why I was reviewing plans.
Again? I was just reading about a similar case: https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-pra...
The retired "engineer" can talk about engineering, he just can't present expert witness in a trial.
Also, he was never licensed as an engineer, it's not as if his engineering license lapsed after testimony.
You can throw out all expert testimony in the US if you wish, I guess that would put CSI out of business.
Also, he was never licensed as an engineer, it's not as if his engineering license lapsed after testimony.
You can throw out all expert testimony in the US if you wish, I guess that would put CSI out of business.
"North Carolina tells non-professional engineer that he can't present expert witness testimony because he isn't an expert by either legal or professional standards" isn't as catchy, I guess.
I wonder if this org is just fine with non-CPAs handling their finances.
I wonder if this org is just fine with non-CPAs handling their finances.
> But Wayne’s troubles began when he when he agreed to help his son, Kyle, a North Carolina attorney, with a case about a piping system that allegedly flooded a few local homes.
Is anyone more disturbed by the fact that a family member can serve as an impartial expert witness?
Is anyone more disturbed by the fact that a family member can serve as an impartial expert witness?
I don't think expert witnesses are supposed to be necessarily impartial and can't personally favor one side or the other winning a case. It's part of the legal process that attorneys go out and hunt for the best possible advocate for their side. Additionally, expert witnesses are often paid a fee for their time and effort involved in preparing for and appearing to testify on a case. If we want to talk about bias, it feels like accepting money from one side should be just as damning as having a familial connection.
To me, it feels like any potential bias should be disclosed in legal filings and argued by the other side of the case during the legal dispute, and the judge/jury should weigh this in whatever decision-making process they employ.
In closing, I'd say this. Preparing for a serious trial might cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Do you really want to live in a world where you can't offer to help a family member or friend who asks for your help in a subject matter you know about?
To me, it feels like any potential bias should be disclosed in legal filings and argued by the other side of the case during the legal dispute, and the judge/jury should weigh this in whatever decision-making process they employ.
In closing, I'd say this. Preparing for a serious trial might cost tens of thousands of dollars or more. Do you really want to live in a world where you can't offer to help a family member or friend who asks for your help in a subject matter you know about?
Expert witnesses are pretty much never impartial. Each attorney picks their own witness subject to the judge's approval on professional qualifications. The attorney, not the judge, chooses the witnesses. They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say. A plaintiff expert witness who doesn't say what the attorney wants will soon be out of work or vice versa.
So you often get each side with a biased witnessess arguing the other biased witness is wrong.
So you often get each side with a biased witnessess arguing the other biased witness is wrong.
>They get paid to say what the defense attorney wants them to say or the plaintiff attorney wants them to say.
Having done this sort of work... Sort of. We were picked in part because we had already publicly written about a case in a way that supported one side's position. (Obviously the side that reached out to us.) There was nothing in our report I didn't personally agree with.
I'd add that my understanding is that, while some people do a relatively large amount of expert witness work--we did not--the preference is that expert witnesses don't do this as a full-time gig where it becomes a matter of supporting what whoever paying them wants.
Having done this sort of work... Sort of. We were picked in part because we had already publicly written about a case in a way that supported one side's position. (Obviously the side that reached out to us.) There was nothing in our report I didn't personally agree with.
I'd add that my understanding is that, while some people do a relatively large amount of expert witness work--we did not--the preference is that expert witnesses don't do this as a full-time gig where it becomes a matter of supporting what whoever paying them wants.
Nepotistic credentialism scribed into stone by bureaucrats and enforceable by jailtime. This is happening at a grand scale and is only hastening the cancerous growth of Cost Disease.
Oh, you don't have a programming license? You aren't allowed to write C++.
Oh, you don't have a programming license? You aren't allowed to write C++.
Here’s the thing I don’t understand, why are licenses required for engineers? Is it an ethics thing? This reminds me of the guy here in Portland that told the city their traffic lights were wrong and they fined him for not having an engineering license.
I don’t have a degree, no license, or accreditation, yet I’ve worked for government contracts, medical software, and designed hardware for doctors. Would I then be sued for giving advice from my proven track record? I’ve never called myself an engineer yet most of my job titles say Engineer.
I don’t have a degree, no license, or accreditation, yet I’ve worked for government contracts, medical software, and designed hardware for doctors. Would I then be sued for giving advice from my proven track record? I’ve never called myself an engineer yet most of my job titles say Engineer.
I remember discussions here on HN where people were looking forward to regulating software engineering.
That’s one thing.
Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another.
An airplane pilot is licensed and will talk trash w/ people about flying and not get in trouble unless they express an opinion like ‘i love to drink a six pack before I get in the cockpit’.
Other people say what they want about aviation and unless it is something like ‘I used this one weird trick to smuggle a sniper rifle past the X ray backscatter machine’ or ‘kewl! I jammed the gps on a plane and saw the coordinates change on ads-b’ you won’t face criminal charges.
There was a day when Wilhelm Reich was sent to jail and L. Ron Hubbard exiled at sea. Today, it seems almost impossible to face criminal charges for bogus health information.
Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another.
An airplane pilot is licensed and will talk trash w/ people about flying and not get in trouble unless they express an opinion like ‘i love to drink a six pack before I get in the cockpit’.
Other people say what they want about aviation and unless it is something like ‘I used this one weird trick to smuggle a sniper rifle past the X ray backscatter machine’ or ‘kewl! I jammed the gps on a plane and saw the coordinates change on ads-b’ you won’t face criminal charges.
There was a day when Wilhelm Reich was sent to jail and L. Ron Hubbard exiled at sea. Today, it seems almost impossible to face criminal charges for bogus health information.
> Criminal charges for expressing your opinion is another.
Being a paid expert witness is different than “expressing your opinion.” It’s one thing to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify and another to swear and speak authoritatively. Expert testimony “opinion” could result in people going to jail, or in this case paying large sums of money.
I imagine a case of medical malpractice where an unlicensed doctor was expertly testifying as to the proper procedure. That seems inappropriate.
Being a paid expert witness is different than “expressing your opinion.” It’s one thing to be subpoenaed and compelled to testify and another to swear and speak authoritatively. Expert testimony “opinion” could result in people going to jail, or in this case paying large sums of money.
I imagine a case of medical malpractice where an unlicensed doctor was expertly testifying as to the proper procedure. That seems inappropriate.
Yes, though I wonder whether this couldn't be handled better? Courts are already organized as an adversarial system:
So let the lawyers bring in whatever supposed experts they can find, and let the lawyers from the other side poke holes at their credentials? Same procedure as with eyewitnesses, which are not usually licensed.
So let the lawyers bring in whatever supposed experts they can find, and let the lawyers from the other side poke holes at their credentials? Same procedure as with eyewitnesses, which are not usually licensed.
Some people want software engineering to be like other engineering disciplines where a PE license and/or union membership is mandatory to practice the trade.
I think you find most of those people do not have any intentions of bringing meaningful value to the engineering disciplines. It's just a business opportunity to them.
In the 1980s there was a proposal in the California legislature to license software engineers. They basically took an EE-related test (developed by the IEEE, little surprise) and stirred some software in there. I don't remember what software methodology flavor-of-the-month they rubberstamped, but I assure you that it was forgettable.
It was a bare-faced, rent-seeking money grab from some entrenched licensing board. I mean, I've used Ohm's Law in my software career, and I've made smoke come out of things on a professional basis. But it's hardly necessary for a security engineer to know about impedance matching.
It was a bare-faced, rent-seeking money grab from some entrenched licensing board. I mean, I've used Ohm's Law in my software career, and I've made smoke come out of things on a professional basis. But it's hardly necessary for a security engineer to know about impedance matching.
Yes, those wishes are what I was referring to.
Not sure why you are being downvoted.
Not sure why you are being downvoted.
Meanwhile Executives, presidents and ministers don't need to show competence in anything at all, and their decisions affect lives of millions
IJ does great work. They definitely have a libertarian bent, and while I wouldn't necessarily want to live in a full blown taxation-is-theft society, I do feel better knowing there are groups out there providing necessary pushback like seen here. A big case they won here in my state was returning a $40k car that was confiscated by the police because the person was arrested on a $100 drug crime.
I donate to them and encourage others to do so as well. And if you were one of the people complaining in that other HN thread about the alleged changes in the ACLU, consider donating here instead, rather than just not donating to any civil rights groups.
I donate to them and encourage others to do so as well. And if you were one of the people complaining in that other HN thread about the alleged changes in the ACLU, consider donating here instead, rather than just not donating to any civil rights groups.
This is a one-sided article written by the lawyers of the plaintiff. I don't care to know the rest of the story, so I don't have a worthy comment to make regarding the merits of the free speech argument in the article; however, professional licensing exists for very good reasons, and this article isn't a reason that it should all go away, as many folks here seem to have concluded.
This is a sympathetic framing on an attempt to chip away at licensing requirements. Not saying whether that’s good or bad, just want to point it out
This headline reminded me of another case in Oregon, and in fact IJ was involved in it as well and they link to it from this article: https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-makes-history-w...
It’s a US thing I believe . In india, I don’t need to obtain any license to sign my Structural Engineering drawings. In my organisation, EIL, a public sector EPC enterprise under Government of India, you become signing authority on drawings with approx 15 years of experience. Thats it. For expert witness in courts, I have heard only Collage Professors considered.
> It’s a US thing I believe
It is a great many countries.
It is a great many countries.
We have news media and journalism specifically to investigate and hold politicians and government to account. Why would we not allow the same in engineering?
Outrageous. Something definitely smells. Worth further investigation.
Outrageous. Something definitely smells. Worth further investigation.
It's not clear from the complaint if he's being threatened with legal action because he's voiced his opinion, or because he prepared testimony as an expert witness concerning engineering in a trial.
Given that the case cites numerous times he gave his opinion in "public and quasi-judicial" fora without mentioning reprimand, it seems like it's the latter. That's doesn't sound like a first amendment violation. Truth is not the only bar to clear in legal testimony.
Given that the case cites numerous times he gave his opinion in "public and quasi-judicial" fora without mentioning reprimand, it seems like it's the latter. That's doesn't sound like a first amendment violation. Truth is not the only bar to clear in legal testimony.
I don’t see why someone needs to be licensed to provide expert opinion (even in court). It’s just the job of the other side to discredit the expert witness.
Engineering licences are really meant to protect unqualified people making bad designs which get made and produce safety/quality issues - their purpose isn’t to work out who should be able to say what. They are about making sure something physical gets built correctly according to code.
The idea that someone could see a safety issue related to the engineering of something and wouldn’t be able to raise it (in either a casual or legal setting) because they don’t have a licence is clearly absurd.
Engineering licences are really meant to protect unqualified people making bad designs which get made and produce safety/quality issues - their purpose isn’t to work out who should be able to say what. They are about making sure something physical gets built correctly according to code.
The idea that someone could see a safety issue related to the engineering of something and wouldn’t be able to raise it (in either a casual or legal setting) because they don’t have a licence is clearly absurd.
The obvious reason you might want him to have a license to speak in court is if he's blatently lying in court about engineering you can revoke the license after a legal proceeding and no longer have a paid liar as a tool for attorneys to hire to decieve the judge and jury.
If the expert witness were lying, wouldn't that be perjury, and doesn't that come with its own legal repercussions?
Sure, in theory lying can have legal consequences, but only if you can prove the person is intentionally lying. To take away the license you'd only have to prove they are stating things no qualified engineer would say.
Suppose, for example, an engineer testified that bricks should never be used in housing because in his professional opinion bricks cause cancer. His source is a blog post as reliable as a supermarket tabloid.
How do you prove he's intentionally lying, rather than just insane or confused or stupid?
By making it a license issue instead, you at least move the goal as to whether his statements meet some minimum standard of professional expectations or care.
This is all just hypothetical, in practice I don't know to what extent these license authorities are supervising engineers. But ideally I'd like an engineer to at least have some pressure to remain honest when they testify in court.
Suppose, for example, an engineer testified that bricks should never be used in housing because in his professional opinion bricks cause cancer. His source is a blog post as reliable as a supermarket tabloid.
How do you prove he's intentionally lying, rather than just insane or confused or stupid?
By making it a license issue instead, you at least move the goal as to whether his statements meet some minimum standard of professional expectations or care.
This is all just hypothetical, in practice I don't know to what extent these license authorities are supervising engineers. But ideally I'd like an engineer to at least have some pressure to remain honest when they testify in court.
Public hearings for real estate development approval are commonly quasi-judicial. It would be unsurprising if that was the context because it is a context in which other participants would have concerns over unqualified persons holding themselves out as experts. It is also a context in which it is easy to collect evidence.
It is worth distinguishing that engineers are regulated because their opinions carry legal weight. They carry legal weight because the truth is difficult to determine and even experts (i.e engineers) can’t readily determine it absolutely (hence safety factors).
The safety valve for engineering opinion’s weight is engineers are personally liable for errors in judgment (no corporate protection).
It is worth distinguishing that engineers are regulated because their opinions carry legal weight. They carry legal weight because the truth is difficult to determine and even experts (i.e engineers) can’t readily determine it absolutely (hence safety factors).
The safety valve for engineering opinion’s weight is engineers are personally liable for errors in judgment (no corporate protection).
The Institute for Justice is the same Koch-backed[1] anti-government libertarian law firm that sued Oregon for the cranky Swedish guy who complained about traffic lights[2].
1 https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice
2 https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
1 https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Justice
2 https://ij.org/press-release/oregon-engineer-wins-traffic-li...
Two complaints: All of the articles I can find are copies of the IJ release. And the title is click-bait.
It appears from the IJ's "details" (https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that Nutt is a chemical engineer. ("Wayne Nutt spent over 37 years as a practicing engineer, mostly working for the DuPont corporation in North Carolina. In that time, he worked with a variety of different technologies and designed and built a variety of things, including pipes for transportation of fluid, while developing deep expertise in chemical engineering and technology.")
He provided expert testimony on a water drainage issue. ("Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry.")
Then, "After Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, the lawyers for the defendant threatened to report him to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. Wayne didn’t take the threat seriously; he wasn’t designing anything or building anything, he was just offering his opinion about something that might have happened in the past."
Offering expert testimony appears to fall under the definition of "practice of engineering" (https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-lan...). "The practice of engineering in North Carolina for projects or testimony impacting the public in North Carolina requires that the individual and company must be licensed in North Carolina. ... Our Board considers that any testimony that requires engineering knowledge to adequately provide and to protect the public falls with the definition of the practice of engineering and requires a NC PE license." (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...)
The court appears to have allowed him to provide the expert testimony, but the Board is doing what it does.
There's not much to see here; no one except the IJ is saying anything about "he can't talk about engineering"---the topic in question is expert testimony and I don't think federal courts are going to regard that as some form of protected speech in this situation.
It appears from the IJ's "details" (https://ij.org/case/nc-engineering-speech/)that Nutt is a chemical engineer. ("Wayne Nutt spent over 37 years as a practicing engineer, mostly working for the DuPont corporation in North Carolina. In that time, he worked with a variety of different technologies and designed and built a variety of things, including pipes for transportation of fluid, while developing deep expertise in chemical engineering and technology.")
He provided expert testimony on a water drainage issue. ("Wayne’s trouble started when he volunteered to testify as an expert witness in a case his son, an attorney, was litigating. The case involved a piping system in a housing development that allegedly caused flooding in nearby areas, and Wayne, who had designed plenty of pipes in his day, volunteered to testify about the volume of fluid that pipe could be expected to carry.")
Then, "After Wayne testified truthfully that he was not (and never had been) a licensed engineer, the lawyers for the defendant threatened to report him to the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors. Wayne didn’t take the threat seriously; he wasn’t designing anything or building anything, he was just offering his opinion about something that might have happened in the past."
Offering expert testimony appears to fall under the definition of "practice of engineering" (https://codes.findlaw.com/nc/chapter-89c-engineering-and-lan...). "The practice of engineering in North Carolina for projects or testimony impacting the public in North Carolina requires that the individual and company must be licensed in North Carolina. ... Our Board considers that any testimony that requires engineering knowledge to adequately provide and to protect the public falls with the definition of the practice of engineering and requires a NC PE license." (https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/NC_Engineering_ema...)
The court appears to have allowed him to provide the expert testimony, but the Board is doing what it does.
There's not much to see here; no one except the IJ is saying anything about "he can't talk about engineering"---the topic in question is expert testimony and I don't think federal courts are going to regard that as some form of protected speech in this situation.
I see here a huge imbalance. On one hand, there's a board that can order an expert in a certain field to shut up and not even talk about his field of expertise, and now said expert has to go to the court.
On the other hand, the internet has become this fucking enormous megaphone of people who have no idea what they're talking about, they are also completely free to put up fucking billboards IRL about, say, how the pandemic is a hoax and how vaccines are dangerous — nobody bats an eye, and there's really is no efficient way to get them to shut the fuck up about stuff they've got no clue about.
Now I'm not saying there should be censorship (although requiring tinfoil hat wielders to pay hefty license fees sounds very tempting), but it looks like today it's way easier to silence a real subject matter expert than a pompous charlatan, and that's plain unfair.
On the other hand, the internet has become this fucking enormous megaphone of people who have no idea what they're talking about, they are also completely free to put up fucking billboards IRL about, say, how the pandemic is a hoax and how vaccines are dangerous — nobody bats an eye, and there's really is no efficient way to get them to shut the fuck up about stuff they've got no clue about.
Now I'm not saying there should be censorship (although requiring tinfoil hat wielders to pay hefty license fees sounds very tempting), but it looks like today it's way easier to silence a real subject matter expert than a pompous charlatan, and that's plain unfair.
The early days of consumer internet—up to the early 2000s—didn’t exhibit the same scale of misinformation as what we see today.
The problem of today is that misinformation scales far more easily than quality information, and it’s because we don’t have the tools to filter out well-written (grammar and tone) misinformation.
I’m not sure credentialism alone is the answer though.
The problem of today is that misinformation scales far more easily than quality information, and it’s because we don’t have the tools to filter out well-written (grammar and tone) misinformation.
I’m not sure credentialism alone is the answer though.
Obvious overreach.
These engineers are no more practicing engineering without a license than anti-vaxxers are practicing medicine without a license.
(OTOH, maybe we're on to something there...)
These engineers are no more practicing engineering without a license than anti-vaxxers are practicing medicine without a license.
(OTOH, maybe we're on to something there...)
If I go into a hospital waiting room and start telling people there they shouldn't get vaccinated because it will give them autism, you can bet I've opened myself up to much greater consequences than just getting kicked out of the hospital.
The anti-vaxxers seem to do it all the time without much in the way of consequences
Let’s start with my personally theory that hopefully won’t color all of the conversation about the individual points. This guy pissed off some people and those people are using their petty power to make his life hell. It’s like the 10’s of thousands of people jaywalking without issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw walking. We all know that’s not why he was arrested but the law is clear, he was breaking the law, and they enforced it. So the individual incident dots it’s I’s and crosses it’s t’s as long as you don’t bring up the dreaded ‘uneven enforcement’ issue which is at the heart of everything wrong with the law in America. I have no evidence for the theory but it makes sense with the multiple issues involving this guy mentioned in such a short article.
Next interesting point. Is giving a speech about how to treat a broken bone considered ‘practicing medicine’? Who gets to decide the answer. Is a PHD candidate writing an exploration of the efficacy of the various methods for treating a migraine practicing medicine? What if he’s selling copies of his paper on the checkout counter at the drug store? I use medicine instead of engineering because I think it’s easier to discuss but the point should hold the same regardless of which licensed profession we are discussing.
Shit I have to run but hope to return to this conversation to discuss the other fun questions raised.