[HN Gopher] North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk ...
___________________________________________________________________
North Carolina tells retired engineer he can't talk about
engineering
Author : tomohawk
Score : 404 points
Date : 2021-06-19 12:09 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ij.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ij.org)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 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.
| rpmisms wrote:
| 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.
| bennysomething wrote:
| Brilliant. I wish they had this in the UK. Seems like a great
| way to keep government size in check.
| inopinatus wrote:
| The UK's equivalent plan is that every couple of decades it
| will flip-flop on being a member of the EU.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| 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.
| trentnix wrote:
| 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.
| fencepost wrote:
| Do they still require a license for strippers? I always
| thought it would be entertaining to be a Texas licensed
| exotic dancer.
| stevespang wrote:
| Wait till they add chimney sweep, topless dancer, and lap
| dancer - - - -
| bob1029 wrote:
| Looks like some of these might be going away soon. Check out
| HB1560:
|
| https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/html/HB01560F.
| ..
| brianwawok wrote:
| 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...
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| 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.
| silverpepsi wrote:
| 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.
| specialist wrote:
| The solution to regulatory capture is to abolish
| regulations?
| EricE wrote:
| 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.
| WalterBright wrote:
| 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.
| frankus wrote:
| 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).
| yaitsyaboi wrote:
| 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.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > 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.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| 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.
| trentnix wrote:
| _> 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.
| Aerroon wrote:
| Then go to one that has some kind of recommendation or
| badge of acupuncture quality. Why should the government
| do that?
| bastawhiz wrote:
| 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.
| _Nat_ wrote:
| > 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.
| specialist wrote:
| 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.
| handrous wrote:
| Because then you need an acupuncture badge quality
| quality badge, and so on.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| 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.
| handrous wrote:
| > 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.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| 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.
| faster wrote:
| 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).
| _Nat_ wrote:
| > 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.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| 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.
| strictfp wrote:
| Love this. I also have a silly question; is the sunset
| commission subject to the same principle?
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 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.
| pestaa wrote:
| Who chaos monkeys the chaos monkey?
| greesil wrote:
| Qui conturbat turbatores accingi
| temporama1 wrote:
| Yeah...
| sn41 wrote:
| From "Guards! Guards!" by Terry Pratchett: "Quis
| custodiet custard?"
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The US was actually founded with the idea that this should be
| done to the _entire constitution_ every couple of decades.
| musingsole wrote:
| 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.
| godelski wrote:
| 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
| zero_iq wrote:
| 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.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| 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.
| godelski wrote:
| Honestly this seems prime for abuse, letting that one guy
| decide to "forget" what he doesn't like.
| malwarebytess wrote:
| After all, why shouldn't each generation choose how it is to
| govern itself? Sins of the Fathers and so on...
| dexterdog wrote:
| 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?
| mindslight wrote:
| That's utterly incompatible with Common Law, unfortunately.
| musingsole wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| fragileone wrote:
| [citation needed]
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| 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.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| 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
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Didn't the UK establish a Supreme Court in 2009 with the
| power to bind Parliament?
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| 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_Un
| ited_Ki...
| tzs wrote:
| > 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.
| comicjk wrote:
| 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.
| benglish11 wrote:
| 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.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _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.
| musingsole wrote:
| 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.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| It also ignores the significant disagreements the
| founders had amongst themselves.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I've often thought that a 60% majority should be required to
| pass new laws, and 50% to repeal them.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| 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.
| labcomputer wrote:
| 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.
| wwweston wrote:
| 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.
| beebeepka wrote:
| Does it not create jobs?
|
| Not saying it's good nor bad.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| 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.
| tomc1985 wrote:
| 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.
| influx wrote:
| See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
| for why this is bad.
| JuettnerDistrib wrote:
| 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?
| an_opabinia wrote:
| 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?
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| 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]
| beebeepka wrote:
| 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.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > Is that good or bad?
|
| I'm gonna go with bad.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| dantheman wrote:
| 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'
| travisjungroth wrote:
| 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.
| echelon wrote:
| 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.
| savant_penguin wrote:
| 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
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I got through college doing meaningless jobs.
|
| Security jobs, and working at a gas station, allowed me
| to do all my homework.
| gpvos wrote:
| I understand that 95% of American defense is a jobs
| program. Let's fry the bigger fish first.
| Aeolun wrote:
| 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.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| 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.
| irrational wrote:
| 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.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| 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'.
| cloverich wrote:
| 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.
| brewdad wrote:
| 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.
| briffle wrote:
| 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.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| 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.)
| sonofhans wrote:
| 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.
| bombcar wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| 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).
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| FigmentEngine wrote:
| love it!
|
| is there a Sunset Commission for the Sunset Commission? :-)
| eesmith wrote:
| 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.
| breck wrote:
| I wonder if all laws should have such a thing.
| foolinaround wrote:
| 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 )
| AbrahamParangi wrote:
| Exponential backoff but for laws
| lsaferite wrote:
| They should.
| nickthemagicman wrote:
| This is great! Should really apply to laws as well.
| bushbaba wrote:
| 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.
| mc32 wrote:
| 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.
| dylan604 wrote:
| So when is ERCOT's tenure due? Moste useless of the useless.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 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...
| hhfnkyfvj wrote:
| This isn't Reddit, you can keep the little "clever" quips to
| yourself.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Thanks. I was confused what website I was using. I'm pretty
| sure there's an HN rule about not telling people this isn't
| reddit: "Please don't post comments saying that HN is
| turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as
| the hills."
| greesil wrote:
| It has become more political in the past year I've
| noticed. Oh well. And the same arguments over and over
| and over and over.
| dylan604 wrote:
| ERCOT has been all in the news for the wrong reason this
| year. Most obvious was the snowpocalypse back in
| February. During the fall out of that, the ERCOT board
| went through personnel changes for various reasons. Now,
| we're being told by ERCOT that we have to once again
| limit our electricity use because of their mismanagement
| of resources. It's Texas. It gets hot during the summer
| causing people to use their AC units. It doesn't take a
| rocket scientist or even an HN level hacker to understand
| that a basic management decision would be to ensure your
| electricity production would be up to the task. If this
| isn't worth of discussion, then what is?
| greesil wrote:
| Sorry, I meant in general in HN, not anything specific to
| Texas.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| "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.
| stevespang wrote:
| Hope the I of J files suit against Texas soon enough, for years
| the State of Texas board has been sending nasty letters to anyone
| who uses the word "engineer" on their business card, web page,
| sign, etc. that you have to pay up to them, and take and pass
| some grade school exam in order to be able to use the word
| engineer.
|
| Software engineers in Texas all have given up using that title.
| mkl95 wrote:
| 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.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 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.
| deftnerd wrote:
| 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.
| ghoward wrote:
| 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.
| colechristensen wrote:
| >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.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| 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.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 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.
| corin_ wrote:
| 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?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Well, is she advising her patients not to get vaccines?
| Because then she's not following the guidelines for
| standard of care.
| corin_ wrote:
| 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.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| 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.
| corin_ wrote:
| 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.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| Your honest view is that if a nurse is committing medical
| malpractice the furthest extent of punishment should be
| "find work elsewhere"?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| 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.
| colechristensen wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| jbay808 wrote:
| In Canada it's more like the former -- you aren't allowed
| to even call yourself an engineer unless you have a P.
| Eng.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| 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.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| 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?
| mcguire wrote:
| 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.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| 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.
| underseacables wrote:
| 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.
| ramshanker wrote:
| 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.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > It's a US thing I believe
|
| It is a great many countries.
| phasetransition wrote:
| 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.
| blunte wrote:
| 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.
| insaneirish wrote:
| 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?
| chiph wrote:
| 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.
| flenserboy wrote:
| 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.
| logicchains wrote:
| > 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.
| flenserboy wrote:
| You're right on that -- I was thinking more (and should
| have specified) supporting professions, such as
| dietitians.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| 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.
| porknubbins wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| 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.
| VictorPath wrote:
| 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.
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| What a fascinating case. There are so many details in such a
| short articles that is each worth its own discussion!
|
| 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.
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| 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...
| mindslight wrote:
| That link is simply 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, I would be unable to state my opinion, and
| would instead have to hire a PE that concurs with me
| simply to express my own opinion.
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| jrockway wrote:
| He claims that this all supported by precedent (and the
| US Constitution itself!), without citing any of the
| precedent.
| [deleted]
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| 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
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| antiterra wrote:
| 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...
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| antiterra wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _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".
| hliyan wrote:
| 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".
| anigbrowl wrote:
| You can make a legal argument that an archaic law suddenly
| being punitively enforced is a _dead letter_.
| _nalply wrote:
| Correct would be _lex mala, lex nulla_ (omit one L).
| Aeolun wrote:
| 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?
| dankboys wrote:
| The uk has a lot of these when it comes to speech and there
| are some fantastic examples
| antognini wrote:
| "To my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law."
|
| -- Oscar Benavides
| ReptileMan wrote:
| This is literally MO of every totalitarian government - make
| it impossible to not be a law breaker, so we can arrest you
| at anytime.
| comicjk wrote:
| 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > It's like the 10's of thousands of people jaywalking without
| > issue and then the homeless guy that gets arrested for jaw
| walking.
|
| I'll take the opportunity to branch OT. This selective
| enforcement has always been such a problem, has there ever been
| any attempt - anywhere - to address it? 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?
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > 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-...
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| Just the concept of "jaywalking" as a punishable offense is
| revolting to me.
| xf1cf wrote:
| 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.
| cloverich wrote:
| 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.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| 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.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| 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 :)
| antognini wrote:
| 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.
| benrbray wrote:
| 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
| tablespoon wrote:
| > 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.
| dotancohen wrote:
| 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.
| rdiddly wrote:
| "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.
| lozenge wrote:
| 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.
| dasudasu wrote:
| 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.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > 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.
| Swenrekcah wrote:
| > 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.
| Agentlien wrote:
| 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.
| erikerikson wrote:
| 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.
| teorema wrote:
| 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.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _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.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > 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.
| [deleted]
| drdaeman wrote:
| 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.
| mcguire wrote:
| 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.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > 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.
| drdaeman wrote:
| > 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.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > 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?
| mcguire wrote:
| " _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.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| > 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."
| erikerikson wrote:
| There was a certain political figure I didn't want to
| invoke who offhandedly suggested this might be a COVID
| solution.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| 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)
| finalis wrote:
| I wish providing medical advice was highly regulated across
| the board. Crisis pregnancy centers certainly aren't:
| https://columbialawreview.org/content/pregnancy-centers-
| and-...
| treeman79 wrote:
| 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.
| erikerikson wrote:
| I mentioned advertising specifically. I'm not an expert and
| recognize it gets far more nuanced from there
| mcguire wrote:
| 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".
| Buttons840 wrote:
| 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 wrong. The government then
| charges the amateur with a crime for knowing a little and
| speaking about what he knew.
| Aeolun wrote:
| 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'.
| e40 wrote:
| _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.
| rpeden wrote:
| I know it's a typo, but jaw walking definitely sounds like an
| arrest-worthy offense. :)
| dstick wrote:
| I don't know, that seems enough punishment in and of itself
| ;-)
| bsder wrote:
| 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.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| 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.
| hervature wrote:
| > 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?
| staticman2 wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| >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.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| 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?
| rcgorton wrote:
| So what is their position on software engineers based in North
| Carolina offering opinions on Usenet/stackoverflow/other forums?
| Or even more aggregious, writing technical engineering papers?
|
| I do not follow their 'logic' here
| sQL_inject wrote:
| 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++.
| toss1 wrote:
| 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...)
| morelisp wrote:
| 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.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| 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.
| brudgers wrote:
| 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).
| Closi wrote:
| 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.
| staticman2 wrote:
| 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.
| gopiandcode wrote:
| If the expert witness were lying, wouldn't that be perjury,
| and doesn't that come with its own legal repercussions?
| staticman2 wrote:
| 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.
| csours wrote:
| 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...
| roenxi wrote:
| 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.
| cesaref wrote:
| It would make learning to be an engineer pretty difficult, if
| you can't talk about stuff until you are qualified!
| blfr wrote:
| 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.
| taneq wrote:
| 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.
| blfr wrote:
| _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.
| taneq wrote:
| 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| You're right, the unregulated dietary supplements market
| looks _so much better_!
| blfr wrote:
| 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.
| logicchains wrote:
| Unregulated dietary supplements have killed way fewer
| people than obesity.
| mcguire wrote:
| " _...needing a license to talk about engineering is really
| stupid..._ "
|
| Not to "talk about engineering". To provide expert testimony as
| an engineer.
| prepend wrote:
| 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).
| civilized wrote:
| > 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.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| coupdejarnac wrote:
| The computer engineering exam contains software
| engineering components fwiw.
| eru wrote:
| I remember discussions here on HN where people were looking
| forward to regulating software engineering.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| 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.
| prepend wrote:
| > 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.
| umvi wrote:
| 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.
| bob1029 wrote:
| 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.
| kabdib wrote:
| 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.
| clejack wrote:
| 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.
| yokaze wrote:
| 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
| JackFr wrote:
| 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.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| Court itself can decide what proof of expertise is
| acceptable. It should not be just a license.
| beerandt wrote:
| 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.
| morelisp wrote:
| 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.
| ivan_gammel wrote:
| 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.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| 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.
| ghaff wrote:
| 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.
| dasudasu wrote:
| 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.
| SkeuomorphicBee wrote:
| > 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.
| beerandt wrote:
| It's usually the licensing board itself that gets to make all
| these determinations.
| elliekelly wrote:
| 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.
| civil_engineer wrote:
| 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...
| morelisp wrote:
| The fact it's his son makes it looks even more like testimony
| from convenience rather than professional consideration.
| chiph wrote:
| 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.
| carlmr wrote:
| I think this preface should be enough, he didn't claim to
| be something he isn't.
| amcoastal wrote:
| They could've not considered his testimony, but instead they
| called it illegal under threat of being charged for a crime for
| giving his opinion.
| mcguire wrote:
| The court considered his testimony. The Board of Examiners is
| charging him with practicing engineering without a license.
| ENOTTY wrote:
| 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
| cratermoon wrote:
| 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...
| elteto wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| nomdep wrote:
| 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.
| dasudasu wrote:
| "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.
| nomdep wrote:
| I am not a lawyer but...
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| 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.
| dasudasu wrote:
| 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.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| > 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?
| mcguire wrote:
| SS 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.
| [deleted]
| mcguire wrote:
| SS 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/Enac
| tedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...)
| mindslight wrote:
| 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.
| akira2501 wrote:
| > 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?
| mcguire wrote:
| 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").
| losvedir wrote:
| 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.
| vzaliva wrote:
| 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.
| orangecat wrote:
| _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.
| lxe wrote:
| Again? I was just reading about a similar case:
| https://www.nbc4i.com/news/electrical-engineer-fined-for-pra...
| michaelmcdonald wrote:
| 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.
| timpattinson wrote:
| 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.
| jpindar wrote:
| >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.
| brudgers wrote:
| 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.
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| 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.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-19 23:01 UTC)