Call for a Professional Programmers' Association
-
gggustafson wrote:
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes
In my first year, I caused 4 m3 of quick drying cement to drop to the factory floor, and I was not accountable; if I was accountable, I'd quit programming. Moreover, if you hold people personally responsible, no one would work at MacDonalds even. Let's not talk hospitals, where they cut people open without personal responsibility.
gggustafson wrote:
I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization
Like schooling and getting a degree? That is different from being accountable, that's simply verifying someone has a certain level of knowledge. Now, I tried to get into school this year, but I do not have enough education to start at that school.
gggustafson wrote:
My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?"
Basically, no. The manager is to blame in that case. It works like that in every occupation, even for cleaners.
gggustafson wrote:
It is for this reason that certification is required.
It is rather hard to get work without any certification or any other creds. It is not required; capitalism would erase those businesses that fail on delivery, wouldn't it?
gggustafson wrote:
The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
A journeymen? :D
gggustafson wrote:
I believe
Which is allowed, but keep that nonsense in your church. We measure, instead of believing.
gggustafson wrote:
For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost.
I do like our socialist system in the Netherlands, but why would/should this be about programmers, instead of
-
Gerry Schmitz wrote:
"professional" with a code of conduct,
Plenty of professions have a code of conduct. It doesn't stop unethical, venal, or even just stupid people from working in that field. For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them, but I wouldn't even count on that.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
For licensed professions, it may make it easier to get rid of them
I seriously doubt that. "Burzynski Clinic". Operating for 40 years. Sold a bogus cancer cure. Two years after it opened they knew it was a fraud. After that it took them that long to figure out how to remove his medical license.
-
I'm still in a little bit of tryptophan fog, but I'm going to call this as I see it. It's a short version, since I apparently have a 'need' to go buy some reindeer for the front yard :) This is a terrible idea set. Certification. Most certifications are based on one of the following:* Passing a test. While there are certainly people who are very competent that can pass a cert test; there's also a large number of people who can pass a test and are incapable of actually doing anything. Often, professional tests are based on the concept that if one can answer obscure questions, then one certainly must know the basics. False. Coding tests tend to be subjectively reviewed and often deal with non-real-world questions.
- Education. Obviously, education provides some sense of qualification. But, it's worth remembering that for every class, half the class was in the bottom 50%. I'm currently working with a degreed PM and honestly, I get a clearer response running ideas by my dog.
- Experience. It's a decent metric, but between legal issues, company politics, and other things, it can be pretty hit and miss. As far as the benefits and services suggestions? The military offers most of those, so maybe we need a "Programming Force"?
MikeCO10 wrote:
Education. Obviously, education provides some sense of qualification. But, it's worth remembering that for every class, half the class was in the bottom 50%
Almost every company I have ever worked with at least at one point, and some times multiple times, some one gives a speech about how 'this company' has above average programmers. Myself I just wonder where are the below average programmers are working then?
-
gggustafson wrote:
witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters
Pretty sure that was a economic/sales decision. The software that they were charging extra for fixed the problem. It existed when they made the sale. The airline did not buy it.
gggustafson wrote:
Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?
There was a train derailment recently near me. Not the one recently in the news. Closed the highway and killed someone. The problem was with the track. So is the engineer that designed the track responsible? The last person who inspected the track? The engineer that was driving the train? The technical management at the company that oversaw the inspections?
gggustafson wrote:
The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
Frank Lloyd Wright. A certified architect. Perhaps the most acclaimed architect in the US. Presumably those working at his firm were certified. The biggest achievement - 'FallingWater' [Edited to correct name] That was a house that it was determined, perhaps in the last 20 years or so, was not possible to build with materials that existed at the time. Which is why it has been propped up with additional support for decades. Lots of 2x4s as I understand it. Until they recently fixed it with something that has only recently been available. The Narrows Bridge Disaster. Presumably built by certified engineers. The Florida Surfside condominium collapse. Killed 98 people. What about the 'certified' people that worked on that? Matter of fact what about the people that were supposed to be surveying it for problems before it fell down? They too were certified.
gggustafson wrote:
but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Move to Texas perhaps? As I understand it you can't call yourself an engineer unless you are certified. So if you really think it is going to make you a better professional then you should move there. Software Engineering[^]
Your next to last block, responding to "The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software." makes a very good point. Every engineering disaster has been designed and built by "certified" pros, many who would be considered highly qualified to boot. And several of the major disasters were caused by errors made at the highest level of certification. And, as you point out in your examples, many are subject to continuous review by certified professionals. And certifying programmers like the IBEW certifies electricians just doesn't get you anywhere. There's good and bad regardless of the paper certs. Hey, we must be neighbors, though I've become a snowbird as I've come to hate the cold. :laugh:
-
Do we hold bankers or politicians accountable? Why would I take responsibility, if I have no influence on budget or time-management? :^)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
"Hey, you'll finish the pacemaker BIOS next week or else, buddy." Can we start an organization like this who prevents any other organization from forming? Their only function to ensure that no accreditation or licensing is ever a thing. It's for the good of humanity, really. I think it might cause a mass exodus/brain drain that wouldn't really be recoverable. Too much demand and too few who know what's going on. We'll essentially have made sure we make things worse by enshrining a sort of 'standards' body right at the time we alienate and ouster a bunch of people who had the knowledge and experience to know that can't be done correctly for this. Little that comes out of it will not actually be detrimental, much less beneficial. Force companies to fully staff accredited QA depts. It doesn't matter if we take responsibility. Everyone is going to always always make mistakes. Ideally a QA dept can function as both "tester" and as "enforcer" when it comes to things we say software shouldn't do, like killing people. The standards body we need right now is not in code quality enforcement, code, or process standards. The one we need is probably more like a medical ethics board. But that's just impossible. Still, I think our worse problem is not bugs and craftsmanship but more "just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or even be allowed to)".
-
gggustafson wrote:
witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters
Pretty sure that was a economic/sales decision. The software that they were charging extra for fixed the problem. It existed when they made the sale. The airline did not buy it.
gggustafson wrote:
Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?
There was a train derailment recently near me. Not the one recently in the news. Closed the highway and killed someone. The problem was with the track. So is the engineer that designed the track responsible? The last person who inspected the track? The engineer that was driving the train? The technical management at the company that oversaw the inspections?
gggustafson wrote:
The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software.
Frank Lloyd Wright. A certified architect. Perhaps the most acclaimed architect in the US. Presumably those working at his firm were certified. The biggest achievement - 'FallingWater' [Edited to correct name] That was a house that it was determined, perhaps in the last 20 years or so, was not possible to build with materials that existed at the time. Which is why it has been propped up with additional support for decades. Lots of 2x4s as I understand it. Until they recently fixed it with something that has only recently been available. The Narrows Bridge Disaster. Presumably built by certified engineers. The Florida Surfside condominium collapse. Killed 98 people. What about the 'certified' people that worked on that? Matter of fact what about the people that were supposed to be surveying it for problems before it fell down? They too were certified.
gggustafson wrote:
but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Move to Texas perhaps? As I understand it you can't call yourself an engineer unless you are certified. So if you really think it is going to make you a better professional then you should move there. Software Engineering[^]
Fallingwater? :)
Gus Gustafson
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
Sounds like a call to start an heated argument. 😁😁 There have been classes and certifications and such for years. But trying to shove everyone into the same sized box will stifle innovation. There is always a need for accountability, just as there is a need for review and testing. Good luck!
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
As others have said, programmers have little control over any part of the software development process: 1. We do not control the specification - it is given to us by the customer or by Marketing 2. We have little control over the design - it is often driven by hardware requirements 3. We have some control over the coding 4. We do not control the QA, testing, or acceptance tests 5. And most important - we control neither the schedule nor the budget Why should we be held responsible for the results of other people's decisions?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
I cannot agree more! When given a task to supply the code that will ensure 1+1=2, we are not tasked to re-discover the wheel to formulate what makes 1 or 2, our job is to secure the 2, else all fails. If a non-programmer miscalculated the outcome of 2, who is to blame if the design said 1 + 2, but it was misrepresented as 1+1....
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
The point of a professional society is not to place blame on the professional. The purpose is to require that professionals as well as companies follow a body of good practice. If the standard of practice is followed, and a bug still gets through, you can defend a lawsuit by saying, "We followed the standard of practice so we cannot be held liable." This is how medicine works (in the USA). Step 1: spin up a professional society to set standards of practice (so lawyers don't do it for us) Step 2: make companies liable for buggy software. Right now they are protected. Step 3: create a certification exam and require that project leadership has passed the exam if companies don't want to be liable. Accountants have the CPA, Lawyers have the Bar exam, mechanical and civil engineers have the Professional Engineer exam, doctors have the Board Certification exam.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
Sorry, such an association would do exactly nothing. I think it would rather be overall detrimental to the development of software. Issues like that of the 737 Max was not about accountability of programmers, but but management. From software development management over project management to Boeing's upper management, those were the ones that needed to be held accountable. Boeing was getting lazy, after decades of making money with just two aircraft designs (747, 737) from the early 60s.They simply missed the bus at latest in the early 80s when Airbus started to pass them with a more modern design left and right... Certification is pointless. What exactly do you want to certify? It's the same with all those sysadmin or networking certifications. A piece of paper on the wall that just doesn't mean anything in the real world. If anything, such a certification would just artificially increase the salaries locally (I assume you are here in the US of A) and/or force management to use again more offshore programmers in price dumping, low quality locations half a world away. Retirement fund? That is one of the self-inflicted issues of the last (two) decade(s). It has almost become a more of a competition to land high paying jobs at as many companies as possible. Leaving tons of startups in the wake. In general, the software industry has become unreliable, with too many fancy new ideas but very little thorough knowledge. And that is something that you can get only with actively working on something that creates a real value, not just by chasing all the latest paradigms to be like all the other kewl boyz on the block....
-
As others have said, programmers have little control over any part of the software development process: 1. We do not control the specification - it is given to us by the customer or by Marketing 2. We have little control over the design - it is often driven by hardware requirements 3. We have some control over the coding 4. We do not control the QA, testing, or acceptance tests 5. And most important - we control neither the schedule nor the budget Why should we be held responsible for the results of other people's decisions?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
The fallacy of this is that such an association will prevent people making mistakes. This is absurd; will we then abolish design review, testing. I don't think so, nor should we - ever - while humans are involved. Further, like many man made disasters, the 737 Max disasters were a problem of collective business imperatives (management) riding roughshod over individual objections. Your association will do nothing to resolve this and will merely present yet another, and potentially much more effective, way to identify someone at the bottom of the pile to take the fall and divert gaze from the real problem - as you indeed seem to have been. The whole basis for your assertion is flawed.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
As many of the responders to this post seem to have concentrated on fault and blame, let me state that the primary intent of the proposed organization is the preservation of the benefits of its members. For many of us in this profession, we are journeymen - we move from job to job; not necessarily for higher salaries, but rather because the current job is finished and we seek new challenges. I have held many positions over the 60 years of my career. Unfortunately, at each move, I lose the benefits that I acquired during my tenure in the job I am leaving. I have lost vacation days, sick days, and retirement benefits. Although the challenges of the new job were worth the loss of benefits, during a career the loss is appreciable. The proposed organization would compensate for that loss.
Gus Gustafson
-
Fallingwater? :)
Gus Gustafson
-
"Hey, you'll finish the pacemaker BIOS next week or else, buddy." Can we start an organization like this who prevents any other organization from forming? Their only function to ensure that no accreditation or licensing is ever a thing. It's for the good of humanity, really. I think it might cause a mass exodus/brain drain that wouldn't really be recoverable. Too much demand and too few who know what's going on. We'll essentially have made sure we make things worse by enshrining a sort of 'standards' body right at the time we alienate and ouster a bunch of people who had the knowledge and experience to know that can't be done correctly for this. Little that comes out of it will not actually be detrimental, much less beneficial. Force companies to fully staff accredited QA depts. It doesn't matter if we take responsibility. Everyone is going to always always make mistakes. Ideally a QA dept can function as both "tester" and as "enforcer" when it comes to things we say software shouldn't do, like killing people. The standards body we need right now is not in code quality enforcement, code, or process standards. The one we need is probably more like a medical ethics board. But that's just impossible. Still, I think our worse problem is not bugs and craftsmanship but more "just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or even be allowed to)".
jochance wrote:
Their only function to ensure that no accreditation or licensing is ever a thing.
Which is already a thing for IT.
jochance wrote:
The one we need is probably more like a medical ethics board
Go to the one that gives me orders; the person hiring me for a specific task and paying me for exactly that. And if they ask for a nuclear bomb, I do not ask whom we kill, as I have bills to pay.
jochance wrote:
I think our worse problem is not bugs and craftsmanship but more "just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or even be allowed to)"
Who decides then what we should do? Do you want to kill democracy while you're at it? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
A journeymen?
You know the ones that get paid a lot less and...wait for it...are not certified.
I know the term only from the game "Pirates!", where you start as an apprentice, a journeyman or a buccaneer.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I firmly believe that programmers should be held accountable for their mistakes (witness the Boeing 737 Max disasters). I am convinced that the only solution to this problem is the certification of programmers by a vendor-independent organization. Although Code Project has indicated that it is opposed to such a certification organization, I believe that the arguments offered were specious. My question is simply "Doesn't the programmer who wrote the software that caused some type of catastrophe share the responsibility for the disaster?" It is for this reason that certification is required. Once such an organization is in place, companies that do not wish to share the blame for a software-based disaster can hire a certified professional. The certified professional should then use certified journeymen and certified apprentices to design and implement the software. I believe that it is time to organize a programmers' association that can provide certification and other benefits not available to programmers today. For example: a stable retirement fund, not affected by the continuous movement of programmers from one job to another; job protection from any number of ills that plague our profession; career guidance and referrals; legal assistance in the case it is needed; and any number of other services. Of course, there would be a cost but, hopefully, a well-spent cost. It is time for programmers to organize, if not to obtain services not available today, but to raise their profession to a recognized standing.
Gus Gustafson
I would say Yes and No compareing to other industries for an assoication, I am unsure how the retirement fund, and work protections fit in. In best, it would make sense for civil or human saftey projects, such as public used planes and transport where can say, - we have done 3 layers of testing - have backup systems - documentation coverage. - critical failures are capable of falling back to safety - Simulation model that has run for X years - security plans put into place Things like bridges have strict regulations and requirements. However at the benfit of decades of material science. New OS security risk skyrocket but given 6 months of tests and rolled out to millions. Programming languages which are not old. The pace expectations are very high, so reason for it fall apart quick. With that though there are some things that can be signed off. Such as no external access either USB port or network, until that one person must have remote access and leaves it open. the responsibility of the authority body could be identical to [Construction Product Certification - British Board of Agrément](https://www.bbacerts.co.uk/)
Quote:
We are quality drivers, champions of safety and help our clients create accountability and mitigate risk. Through extensive research, auditing, inspection, testing and certification, we help to instil confidence in the products, services and systems created, designed and implemented throughout the entire British construction supply chain.
As for 90% of the work done, protecting Software Engineering title from other Programmer titles like Canada does, it seems overkill.
-
jochance wrote:
Their only function to ensure that no accreditation or licensing is ever a thing.
Which is already a thing for IT.
jochance wrote:
The one we need is probably more like a medical ethics board
Go to the one that gives me orders; the person hiring me for a specific task and paying me for exactly that. And if they ask for a nuclear bomb, I do not ask whom we kill, as I have bills to pay.
jochance wrote:
I think our worse problem is not bugs and craftsmanship but more "just because you can, doesn't mean you should (or even be allowed to)"
Who decides then what we should do? Do you want to kill democracy while you're at it? :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Which is already a thing for IT.
Obviously I meant mandatory.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Who decides then what we should do? Do you want to kill democracy while you're at it?
I'm less concerned about that at all than I am that people are doing all manner of bad and nobody even knows about it. We find out years later about Cambridge Analytica and these things. But it's massive companies doing it. Some of this stuff will flat go away just by exposure to sunlight. They won't even try. So raise awareness, then we can worry about decisioning. It only takes people being aware for some situations to right themselves. It's only profitable because it remains secret. If people knew they did it, whatever 'it' is, the backlash is worse than the benefits reaped.
-
I know the term only from the game "Pirates!", where you start as an apprentice, a journeyman or a buccaneer.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Yep that is how it works. Ideally of course it seems like a good idea. The expert takes in someone without skills and then trains them to become a master. Sometimes it even works that way. But to some non trivial percentage of cases it becomes a way for the expert to get skilled labor (after training) for less than what it would cost to actually pay them without such restrictions being in place. A particularly horrendous example was the 'apprenticeship' laws passed in the US after the civil war that allowed white people to enslave young black people, forcibly (legally enforced), with the justification of claimed benefits.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Which is already a thing for IT.
Obviously I meant mandatory.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Who decides then what we should do? Do you want to kill democracy while you're at it?
I'm less concerned about that at all than I am that people are doing all manner of bad and nobody even knows about it. We find out years later about Cambridge Analytica and these things. But it's massive companies doing it. Some of this stuff will flat go away just by exposure to sunlight. They won't even try. So raise awareness, then we can worry about decisioning. It only takes people being aware for some situations to right themselves. It's only profitable because it remains secret. If people knew they did it, whatever 'it' is, the backlash is worse than the benefits reaped.
jochance wrote:
Obviously I meant mandatory.
So, you want me out? I have no official degree. At all. Just been programming for some years, got some MVP titles and my name is in some books. I paid 500 euro's to get the "minimal knowledge" to apply for an education that would lead to a degree, and after paying that and completing it, still denied. Education is commercial. I know, after paying 500 euro's for an education that explained what variables are.
jochance wrote:
I'm less concerned about that at all than I am that people are doing all manner of bad and nobody even knows about it. We find out years later about Cambridge Analytica and these things. But it's massive companies doing it.
A programmer, you do as said, or you get fired. Do you think "ethics" is going to help?
jochance wrote:
Some of this stuff will flat go away just by exposure to sunlight. They won't even try. So raise awareness, then we can worry about decisioning
Shine a little light on the banking sector.
jochance wrote:
It only takes people being aware for some situations to right themselves. It's only profitable because it remains secret
So why attack me, as a developer, when I do not make decisions nor have any influence on deadlines? Of course it remains a secret, that is how entrepeneurs try to outcompete other ones. Look up malicious compliance, and you'll know how I react to a "boss" that asks the impossible :) The topic is more complex than you paint it, and mandatory licenses won't solve it. I can buy a license for as little as 1000 euro - but to follow the lessons as given to get that degree would cost 2500 euro's. And I'd be spending weeks, learning about variables. The goal is not quality, it is about maximizing profits. Our managers underbid and overpromise to get the bid, even if it isn't realistic. You get better at your job and deliver faster? Great, then the manager has a better margin to overbid, and you get shouted at for not delivering.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.