Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos.

The real differentiator though is that the engineers of tangible things can get sued and go to jail if someone dies, but it seems tech companies gets away with atrocities (profits at the expense of teen suicides) with zero repercussions.

But, what is being described is THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS. This happens in every industry. The larger the company, the more disconnected people become.

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos.

Software does more than cat videos.

Examples that may be relevant:

- CAD and simulation tools that physical world engineers use

- telecommunications (not just programmers, but programmers are vital for the current ultra-cheap generation)

- CT and MRI data processing

- alphafold

- scheduling systems for universities and other schools (makes education more scalable)

- infrastructure/systems programming (OS, web browser, etc.)

Furthermore, no one would claim that civil engineering is useless just because a certain class of billionaires liked to hire them to design silly structures. So, the prevalence of the less useful things speaks more to priorities as a society than anything about software engineering itself

I do realize this and the cat video mention was really me being facetious.

And honestly software engineers don’t need roads anyway working a tough four-day work week with long commute into the basement.

Jokes aside, innovation comes at a price. Every great thing will be turned into a weapon so just wait until the alpha-fold mutants start crawling out of a nearby sewage treatment plant.

Conveniently, those are the subdomains of the tech industry that require a deep understanding of CS theory (eg embedded systems) and DS&A, and yet whenever the subject of Leetcode comes up on HN, software “engineers” swoop in to argue how useless those are as a whole to 90% of the software being built in the world today…

Which, really, implies that 90% of people in this industry work in bullshit jobs that don’t require real engineering skills. You could even spout any BS about architecture in Medium.com and then asked to speak in a conference if it gets enough views.

How does embedded require deep understanding of CS? I work on embedded systems (safety critical no less) and while I can point out how they're actually distributed systems or x theorem is applicable all day, my coworkers don't actually need that info to do their jobs.

C and the various C++ subsets called "C with templates" would be much less common than they are if "deep understandings of CS and DS&A" were required in day to day work.

Your right, as are your examples, but I want to point out an interesting thing about your examples :)

> - CT and MRI data processing

> - scheduling systems for universities and other schools (makes education more scalable)

Those two read as if they are of different urgency (#1: whoever needs it urgently is at risk of dying, schedules for "non-urgent" cases will be affected for months, turning many into urgent cases; #2: the education systems will suffer, but it only gets dire after multiple days), until you realize that #2 also applies to e.g. hospitals.

Medicine at scale is already barely scraping by as it is (see: overworked staff etc. etc.), but disrupt the internal IT working of hospitals and the indirect body count will rise fast.

Hear hear

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos.

This is a fundamentalist perspective; it's hard to dispute that if we didn't have any roads, houses, or cat videos, we would need new roads more than we needed new cat videos.

It's much easier to dispute the idea that we currently need new roads more than we need new cat videos; we already have a lot of roads.

Yeah and a lot of the guys who actually do the work of building roads learn and upskill off youtube.

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos.

If the software made by my company ceased to exist, every government in the US, federal, state, and municipal, every construction company, plus most governments worldwide would be unable to build roads or houses until they were able to cobble together a replacement.

The entire world runs on software. Software controls our banks, flies our planes, decides what happens when you press the brake pedal in your car. The bridges you drive, walk, or ride across were modeled in software and simulated to determine whether they needed to be built stronger. The power companies use software to route power across the grid. Software drives servos which determine how much natural gas and air get pumped into our power plants. Every day, power producers and power consumers bid on how much they will pay for electricity at certain times tomorrow, and all of that is automated by software. Judges and lawyers file motions electronically, routed through software. Two weeks ago, US President Donald Trump, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif signed a memorandum of understanding, opening the Strait of Hormuz. Trump was in Versaille, Pezeshkian was in Tehran, Sharif was in Islamabad; the agreement was signed digitally, with software.

If every computer on earth stopped working tomorrow, we wouldn't notice the lack of cat videos, but we would notice the complete collapse of civilization.

As a 'software engineer' myself, I fully understand your position, but please qualify the statement about the software you work on. Either add 'efficiently' or 'at scale', because all that infrastructure you mentioned could definitely be built without your software. It was possible before your software and it sure would be possible without it, it just would not be as easy.

I am sure someone is going to dwell on that if not fixed.

This is silly. People survived before the Haber Bosch process but an overnight removal of it from the world would absolutely result in a catastrophic collapse.

If you want to be reductive, we’re all going to die due to entropy anyway, it will all balance out so there’s no point in doing anything at all.

Your company's software enhances the process somehow, making it easier or faster or cheaper. Your company's software did not unlock the technology of road building.

There were roads built before your company's software and I'm sure if your company disappeared that ultimately roads would get built with or without their software.

It would be interesting to look at all the technological advances of the last 60 years and break them down into categories based on what happens if they went away though (category A: the field just goes back to 1950s and we more or less get by vs Category B: society utterly collapses).

It's fun to do it forwards too (ie all recent technological advances that could be category a where society cannot live without it or category b where society is like meh or even category c where soecity utterly collapses because of it).

The internet as a whole can arguably be all three at the same time.

It's less about whether we could live without it, more about whether we could live without it now.

We objectively don't need credit cards. We could do with cash just fine. If we were told that Visa / Mastercard were shutting down in 5 years, we'd manage to muddle through. If they suddenly vanished off the face of the Earth? People would definitely die due to starvation.

If the toilets at all those firms started operating in reverse, very little would get built. The conclusion is that plumbers are extremely important, not that plumbing is de facto engineering.

Plumbers build all the pipes, but one of the aforementioned professional engineers created a drawing of where they would go and how the water and sewage would move through the building.

And crucially, independent regulatory bodies formed the building codes[0] which govern things like minimum acceptable pitch for waste lines, size and materials selection of pipes, acceptable pressures and temperatures, etc. Engineers can be held responsible for failing to design to these codes, and plumbers and other tradespersons can be held responsible for failing to build to them.

IMO what we really need in software is something like the various codes which govern fire safety, efficiency, etc of modern buildings. It exists in some safety critical domains but should be more widely applied.

The safety codes are where we accumulate the hard-won knowledge over time. Many of the rules in the codes were paid for with human lives lost.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_Council

Internet is now critical infrastructure, whether we like it or not.

We've quietly gone from it being a research project, to a cool toy, to something most people had but that definitely wasn't essential, to a world where it is just as crucial as lightning or electricity.

I bet many farming and food distribution operations just wouldn't be able to function without a connection to AWS.

>The real differentiator though is that the engineers of tangible things can get sued and go to jail if someone dies,

That basically never happens because the license wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on if it didn't essentially protect you from your own stupidity. Any credentialed professional basically has to be farcically negligent for anything to stick and even if it does damage is usually limited by statute.

That's the whole point. The industry basically strikes a bargain with government to it's benefit. Government lets me run a supply cartel, I promise to enforce minimum standards along the way. Government gives me favorable treatment in court, I do whatever the government's rules say to the detriment of my customers. Society gets just enough scraps to provide the political will to get it done.

Architects are visual artists not engineers.

Only one of your list calls themselves engineers, because the others are not.

The whole premise of labelling someone prejudice for stating the facts is wildly idiotic.

Programming is a brand new discipline. Computers are brand new and revolutionary tech. We're still figuring all this out.

Who, at this time, knows how to write code so well that they can dictate to others how everything should be done, and can they prove this superiority with a mathematical proof? If so, then maybe we can talk about getting bureaucrats involved to make up a bunch of rules and regulations to control everybody. Until then, it's the Wild West out here, and rightfully so.

Tired of shit code? Boycott the organizations who write and deploy it, up to and including opting out of their ' ' society ' ' altogether. Stop expecting Uncle Scam to help you. He's a scammer. All he does is scam people. It's right there in the name.

Ever notice how everything sucks these days--it's all cheap overpriced junk, like appliances, cars, houses, TVs, etc? That's because nobody in this ' ' society ' ' really gives a shit about quality or has any clue how to achieve it. That's who you want making laws?

You’re responding to an argument I didn’t make.

And looks like you agree that coding isn’t engineering.

The first high-level programming language was Plankalkül, created by Konrad Zuse between 1942 and 1945.[2] The first high-level language to have an associated compiler was created by Corrado Böhm in 1951, for his PhD thesis.

How long are you going to keep claiming programming is a brand new discipline?

Okay, engineering proper has thousands of years of history. But it’s not like coding came down in the last shower.

Fair enough that any random app probably doesn’t need to be probably correct. And that’s why it’s not engineering.

The practice of coding is a science and an art.

I guess we should make a distinction between Engineering and engineering.

Lower case e engineering is the design and manufacture of complex product - in which case, sure coding is engineering, and coders are engineers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_programming_languag...

I don't see why it's inconsistent to claim that programming is not engineering today while leaving the door open to the idea that maybe someday it will be. If anything, that seems in line with the criticism of the incentive structure and priorities of the ecosystem; someone who didn't think it was ever possible would more likely object on technical grounds rather than social ones.

> We're still figuring all this out.

The defining feature of engineering as a profession isn't how much we collectively know about it, it's the attitude we bring into day-to-day practice.

Take something like the Sony BMG rootkit scandal[0]. Anybody with an ounce of sense and even basic technical programming knowledge could tell the sort of security issues that that piece of software could lead to. Shipping that thing was the sort of recklessness that would get you stricken from any industry's professional body.

Or maybe something like the UK's Post Office scandal[1]. One of the issues there was that post offices sold foreign currency. People were accused of (and, indeed jailed for) fraud because their branch sold $100, there's £70 in the till, and the reconciliation process says that the exchange rate is $100:£80, so there's £10 missing. Horizon had no way to track that the exchange rate at the time of the transaction was $100:£70, they literally shipped a billing system that handles ForEx but doesn't understand exchange rates change over time. And then they lied about it and said the software was working correctly! This isn't an issue with "revolutionary new tech" that we don't fully understand, it's simply a fruit of having an accounting system designed with no actual accountants in the loop. If an accountant had made this exact same mistake, their licence would almost certainly be revoked, but it's somehow ok because computers are involved?

> If so, then maybe we can talk about getting bureaucrats involved to make up a bunch of rules and regulations to control everybody

We don't need "a bunch" of rules and regulations. We only need one: You're liable for damages resulting from reasonably predictable outcomes, as judged by a panel of your peers.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

That would put full blame on the tech staff and let the C-suite get away. The success of a software product is measured by sales and user base, so the more successful their sales and marketing are, the higher the damages will be for the tech staff.

I am of the opinion that companies and their management should be personally liable for damages caused by bad software, not their employees. They created the structure, hired everyone (and perhaps didn't hire QA), and invested in it to make a huge profit.

I would argue the outcome of setting up a perverse incentive structure and failing to hire QA is pretty damn predictable, so that's entirely consistent with what I said :)

On a more serious note, I'm not saying "just make programmers liable for the code they write", and leave it at that. I'm saying that, when you sell a piece of software, someone needs to sign-off on that software being fit for purpose. It's that someone who's ultimately liable. Absent some explicit firebreak, that sign-off implicitly happens with the CTO or CEO.

On the one hand, the developers who were ultimately tasked directly with building Horizon were completely unqualified to write an accounting system, and lacked even basic knowledge about accounting in general, including fundamental misunderstandings about the very nature of double-entry and ledger-based accounting. From what I can remember from released correspondence, for example, Horizon had fundamental design mistakes that made it essentially not double-entry, particularly when multiple terminals were involved, even when not considering remote changes to accounts.

On the other, the severity of the consequences of the bugs in Horizon came from the behavior of Fujitsu management, the Post Office, and the judicial system, and I'm not sure that individual developers could have reasonably predicted that. The software was used under contracts that tried to make individual users personally liable for errors in the software. When accounts had shortfalls, the Post Office ignored even basic sanity in favor of insisting on Horizon's unerring accuracy. They abused esoteric powers of private investigation and private prosecution combined with their own vested interests to bring completely unreasonable prosecutions. They, along with parts of Fujitsu, repeatedly made false statements to courts about Horizon's basic operation, if often with enough distance from the actual developers to claim ignorance. The judicial system then operated under delusional and hubristic views on software development and practices around experts, witnesses, and coerced pleas that one might argue no reasonable person would have.

If a clearly negligent and unqualified engineer constructs part of an office building for a business with numerous avoidable tripping hazards that violate even basic standards, it seems reasonable that they might be liable for the injuries when employees trip on them. If it turns out that the business has a special right to shoot its employees with no consequences, decides that it would be better to shoot anyone who trips rather than admit to the building being fundamentally flawed, and then repeatedly has courts approve of its actions, I'm not so sure that the engineer should be held liable for mass murder.

Funny you used the word "developer", and I used the word "engineer", because that distinction is critical. A brick layer is not a civil engineer, and is not signing off on a construction project. Likewise, the developers banging out tickets don't have to be software engineers who sign off on a software project.

In the Horizon case, I'm thinking of people like Gareth Jenkins. He was the guy who designed the system, and also one of the expert witnesses you mentioned. He's the one who should be held to the standards I'm talking about.