upvote

points

by ThrowawayR28 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby hnthrow02873456 hours ago|
next
[-]
This would be more meaningful if, perhaps, we had to swear an oath to it before being able to practice. And practitioners would be treated more seriously if everyone knew we swore that oath. And the legal utility as accountability and defense would also be useful.

Of course people are going to ignore it if there's no force behind it.

reply
upvoteby opsnooperfax6 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Professional liability and licensure would create assurances with some teeth, but there are some major drawbacks.
reply
upvoteby gymbeaux5 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Enlighten us to these drawbacks. On the surface I am inclined to say the pros would outweigh the cons. Compared to other professions, software engineering seems to struggle the most with H-1B/Green Card abuse and interview processes. Job interviews are absurdly different (easier) for doctors, lawyers, et al. than for software engineers, and that I believe is because of the licensure. I do think licensure adds overhead to an industry (e.g., malpractice insurance, governing bodies, license management) and that probably discourages anyone with real power (like FAANG) to pursue it and try to set it as an industry-wide standard. Most software engineers in the U.S. are making around $130-140k, but lawyers and medical doctors usually make significantly more (perhaps because of the licensure overhead - I'm not sure if malpractice insurance is included in a medical doctor's salary- I would imagine it's not and is taken out of each paycheck like any other industry's health insurance benefits).
reply
upvoteby ThrowawayR23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> "Job interviews are absurdly different (easier) for doctors, ..."

The job interview for doctors is a 5-7 year residency under tight supervision of an attending physician: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residency_(medicine) . People do flunk or drop out as well, meaning they can never become a physician. There's nothing easier about that.

reply
upvoteby lukan6 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It seems to work somewhat with medical doctors and the Hippocratic Oath.

But I would argue it is way easier there. Building software has way more grey areas.

reply
upvoteby trolleski6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I don't think there are more grey areas in software engineering than in medicine. The difference is the feedback loop of the outcome - if you design a dopamine slot machine you will ruin the generation and that's a long arc.
reply
upvoteby lukan6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
And that makes it hard. I am open for banning all comercial advertisement - but general society is largely fine with it. So is someone designing new targeting algorithm for ads breaking his potential oath of doing good for society?

What grey areas are there for doctors?

reply
upvoteby brcmthrowaway5 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Canadians do
reply
upvoteby jimbokun3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
We need to find an organization to which software engineers can report corporations abusing these principles, that can then take legal action or at least disclose those practices to the general public.
reply
upvoteby mentalgear6 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I think not just (computer) scientists but the general population thinks to serve the common good makes sense, not last because we understand it's eventually for our own good.

It is however just that very small minority of the population with highly psychopathic/narcissistic traits - those that, in pre-historic times, would have been kicked out swiftly of hunter & gatherer / small village communities because of their parasitic nature - that in bigger civilisations seem to thrive due to abstraction (distance/time of the effect of their actions) and obfuscation (PR) and instead unfortunately seem to rise to the top (CEOs, presidents, 'thought leaders' ...) to steer the world's overall economy and mindset - and steer it in the abyss.

Sometimes I think humanity was just not made to scale, and this aspect is one very large aspect of it.

reply
upvoteby jimbokun2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You are referencing prehistoric times because there is no evidence to confirm or refute your claims.

Most likely the same kind of Machiavellian political maneuvering was effective in those groups as well.

reply
upvoteby MichaelZuo6 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Noble ideals can be upheld, relatively consistently… only if violators are visibly punished. And to a degree roughly commensurate with the violation.

The critical point is that the violators have to be punished more consistently then the demanded consistency of the ideals.

reply