The understatement of the century. It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.'
The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board).
> The reason this was upheld by the court was because he was giving public testimony, as opposed to rendering a professional opinion for a client (Which would have been absolutely been under the purview of the relevant licensing board).
If he was was giving testimony that was protected by the first amendment and not attempting to work as an engineer, saying "It would be like calling someone trying to practice law without a license to be 'A restriction by the state from talking about words.'" seems even more misleading than the headline since he wasn't actually attempting to do something analogous to unauthorized practice of law
I don't quite understand why this is a problem? If a parrot is able to perfectly defend someone in the court of law then does it really matter if it never had a license to do so?
There's a problem, for the same reason that you can't do surgery on people without being a doctor.
We've tried letting parrots practice, and it has turned out poorly for everyone involved.
Seems like the money gets sent to people who know how to talk, not on their abilities.
Unlike engineering, or medicine, the overwhelming majority of software projects are not life-critical.
I wouldn't build a bridge the way I build software. I don't work that way because I can't be trusted, I work that way because the stakes of failure are low.