Re:Mats Järlström’s victorious 6-year battle over yellow lights
by kodablah on Sunday March 01, 2020 @03:58PM
(#22459266)
Bad engineering shouldn't be related to use of the general English word, nor should it be used as justification over ownership of such a word. I admit I am unfamiliar with this specific case, but if he claimed he was an "engineer as certified by X" I'd be more sympathetic to X claiming he's lying.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Mats Järlström’s victorious 6-year battle over yellow lights
by WrtCdEvrydy on Sunday March 01, 2020 @04:38PM
(#22459551)
It's the same as saying you're a lawyer.
Re:Mats Järlström’s victorious 6-year battle over yellow lights
by kodablah on Sunday March 01, 2020 @04:49PM
(#22459622)
More like saying you're a teacher in this case. While using that title to get around regulations teaching others in certain settings could be a crime, use of the word colloquially while generally giving knowledge to others (especially if you were a teacher where you came from) should never be a crime.
Re:Mats Järlström’s victorious 6-year battle over yellow lights
by tptacek on Sunday March 01, 2020 @05:34PM
(#22459868)
In this case, yes. But more generally --- the context of the top comment on this subthread --- no.
Re:Mats Järlström’s victorious 6-year battle over yellow lights
by ghaff on Sunday March 01, 2020 @04:49PM
(#22459620)
In the US, if I say I'm a lawyer, I'm at least implying that I passed the bar in some state (although possibly not in your state). If I just went to law school or if I just read a few books on constitutional law, it wouldn't be normal to describe yourself as a lawyer and you wouldn't be legally allowed to represent yourself as one.
People who have even grad degrees in some branch of engineering and have been working in the field for decades. But simply have never had a reason to get a PE? Perfectly reasonable for them to describe themselves as engineers (but not, of course, as PEs).