mcmancini

> It's not so much that there is a shortage of people capable of applying who "kind of" meet the requirements, but truly capable engineers in this field who could pick up the work required are definitely in short supply, PhDs or no.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you're saying that you're failing to find people who are ready to work on day one without additional training?

> And lastly, no one has been offered the position and then rejected it because of the pay. The last 3 offers given out were immediately accepted.

Why would they when there's no meaningful difference in pay between postdoc positions? What would happen if they tried to negotiate for something approaching an industry equivalent salary/benefits?

At what point did the system go awry? When did postdoc go from being a training position to cheap labor? Was it with the doubling of the NIH budget?

No quantitative idea, but as disgusting as the salaries for football coaches (N.B., depending on the school, it may be a budget separate from the academic enterprise), university presidents, &c. are, I would be willing to bet that they are dwarfed by the army of bureaucrats handling what I termed regulatory compliance.

On the research side, off the top of my head you've got grant administrators, institute review boards, research integrity office, postdoc affairs. You've also got "Title IX administrators". Accepting federal funding takes a lot of work.

The worthiness of the services the bureaucrats are providing I leave as an exercise to the reader, but I think it's problematic that the people making the regulations are not the ones paying the bills when it comes time to comply with the regulations.

> ... it feels like a bunch of nosy document-writers pointing down at software engineers saying "you're all shit, and we're going to tell you why".

I was under the impression that SEI has a pretty good reputation among people working on safety-critical systems like aerospace, automotive, and the DoD. Of the two authors with visible profiles, one led "software development projects and software process improvement efforts for the E-2C Hawkeye Program", and the other was "developing and maintaining nuclear engineering and scientific software for 14 years" before coming to SEI. I don't see that there's much basis to say that they are uninformed on software engineering.

> First, I reject the premise that software is poor quality when compared to other engineering disciplines.

If we're talking software on safety-critical systems, that may be true. I think NASA is a great example of software assurance done right. Outside of the SC area, I don't see how you can come to that conclusion: take the perceived decline in Apple's software quality as one example.

> The space shuttle, commonly referred to as the most complex machine ever built, has around 2.5 million parts. The Linux kernel alone has over 16 million source lines of code. It's an order of magnitude more complex than the SPACE SHUTTLE!.

I think this is a nonsensical comparison, but if you want to go with it, consider that each of the Space Shuttle parts has multiple steps going into it's creation. It'd be slightly more fair to say that the Space Shuttle has 2.5 million functions and compare that to the Linux kernel, but it remains a nonsensical comparison.

>Anyone who's ever done software development, will tell you that the order for these is something like: 2b, 2a, 2b, 2d, 2c, oh - someone's asking for sizings, better do some 1 - 2d, 2c, 2d, 2b, 2a, 2d...

Anyone who's done work in a regulated environment will tell you that while your suggested process may happen in the conception stage for preliminary testing, once you're under design control you follow formally documented procedures in the order that they are specified.

> There's got to be a better way to codify what we actually do when we develop good software. Not what we think we do, or wish we did, or claim we do to sound impressive.

Plenty of groups work in this area besides SEI: ASQ, IEEE-CS, ACM, &c. Did you have something specific in mind?

As others are saying, I think you're misjudging the target audience for this document, which I would say is Software Engineers (as in the type that would have PE licensure or work in regulated industries). When you have a defined acceptable defect rate and need to deliver on schedule with proper documentation, then things like PSP, CMMI, &c. do work. It's overkill for a web app. That said, I think adopting some of the rigor and professionalism in Software Engineering as typified by regulated industries would be an overall improvement to software development as it is generally practiced.

Partially, regulatory compliance.

And according to a Comcast VP, no data caps: https://twitter.com/jlivingood/status/583576969188667392

> Science is important, but science reporting (especially medical reporting) seems awful.

I don't think it's limited to science reporting. The more I learn, the easier is is to see the numerous errors made by journalists across all areas. Take Vox, it's an older link but they have been criticized for poor accuracy in reporting (and failing to prominently note corrections).[1]

The Royal Society has it right with their motto, nullius in verba: the news media, much like Wikipedia, is not a reliable source for facts.

[1]: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/46-times-vox-totally-fucked...

I seem to recall one could damage a computer easily by interfacing through the parallel port without isolating correctly... Doesn't look like this guide covers the pitfalls.

Packaging is hard. I'd like to additionally nominate cables (as in wire harnesses) and strain reliefs to the list of things that make my life miserable.

How does the requirement to relocate to SF work for companies with a wet lab or specialized capital equipment requirement? And outside of mentoring/networking (can YC provide in the biotech space?), how is YC a better deal than an SBIR/STTR?

I thought this was a clear and nicely organized explanation of how a differential works, and neat given the age of the video.

It's true that Ti rings are harder to cut, but the equipment to cut them is standard in American ERs. It still takes longer though. Even worse are the newer cobalt chrome rings, those take forever to cut off even with the right equipment. Safest of the alternative materials is probably the tungsten carbide or ceramic rings, since those can be fractured off with a pair of common vice grips. Don't know what happens when you're traveling in an area with a less developed medical system. If you aren't at risk for anaphylactic swelling, don't work with your hands, and don't travel in undeveloped areas, the risk of this sort of situation might be low enough to not worry too much about.

A more practical problem with alternative materials is that they can't be resized (some jewelers will resize Ti a little, but it's challenging). The alternative materials are cheap enough that you can buy a replacement that's the right size, but if you're sentimental (and a wedding band seems like something one might be sentimental about) it's a problem.

There's nothing wrong with alternative materials, it's just that sometimes the drawbacks are overlooked while being dazzled by the advantages.

I guess I don't understand what you mean by a PE not being government-regulated licensing? If you mean that a software engineering PE isn't mandated for work, then I agree that's true but I think that's short-sighted in view of the trends for safety-critical projects. Regardless of government mandates, I see it as problematic from a liability standpoint to sign off on safety-critical projects now that the cat is out of the bag.

Bringing it back to the top of the thread, I think that willful ignorance is a bad recommendation, would not help in a legal situation, would be negligent, and would be contrary to a professional code of ethics. Maybe you feel that a consultant or someone working on areas outside of the safety-critical domain doesn't need to follow a professional code or act in a professional manner? Completely disagree if that is the case.

As far as IEEE-CS and ACM being "obsolete trade associations", agree to disagree. I'm not aware of a better trade organization than those two.

Honestly, I don't understand the backlash against professionalism.

Stick your head in the sand if you want, but for a couple years now there has been PE licensure for software engineering: http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-introduces-pe-exam-f...

Beyond the NCEES, the IEEE Computer Society and ACM jointly publish a code of ethics for software engineering: http://www.computer.org/web/education/code-of-ethics

Even if you're not a member, their code of ethics is similar to every other professional code of ethics I've seen. I don't see what's blurry about it.

Sorry, but I would argue that not reading patents relative to your project is practicing negligence. Maybe that gets you out of trebled damages for willful infringement, but it opens you up to other liabilities and is against professional ethics.

FDA requirements mostly target the SDLC: risk analysis, change control, documentation, v&v, &c. Companies are afforded a surprising amount of flexibility in implementation. Basically, you must have a documented process that you follow, but you're left to your own devices in creating the process. Deviations from voluntary industry standards (e.g., TIR 45) is permissible since they're not specifically required. The DoD, aerospace, and automotive industries have in comparison far more detailed and strict regulatory requirements.

I didn't reply very intelligently. How does 3d printing the frames lower the barrier to entry for competition?

This mechanism could be a nifty low-power basis for a color display technology, kind of like a colloidal version of Mirasol.

I'm not understanding how 3d printing the frames would reduce costs over traditional manufacturing methods.

What part are you proposing to be 3d printed?

I completely disagree, it's downright dangerous to not evaluate the behavior of other drivers around you. If I see someone aggressively changing lanes or tailgating, talking on their cell phone, or doing anything that looks risky to me, I mentally note it and keep as far away from them as possible. I'm frankly amazed anyone wouldn't do the same.

I agree that Alice in my example doesn't have any legal fault for the accident. Maybe this is a cultural difference, but as I see it she does share some responsibility for being in the accident if she didn't make a best-effort attempt using known-good practices to avoid it. All drivers share that responsibility.

Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Now I'm really confused. You're saying that if Alice is in Bob's blind spot, it is impossible for Alice to see Bob on his phone? Are we talking about the same blind spot?

Can you help me to understand victim blaming? Is it victim blaming to say someone was exercising poor risk management?

I think of taking precautions online as being like defensive driving (or any kind of risk management really). If Alice gets sideswiped on the highway because Bob was on his cell phone and didn't check his blind spot, Bob maybe gets charged with failure to maintain the lane or something like that. Doesn't Alice share some responsibility by recognizing that Bob, being on his cell phone, posed an elevated risk and managing accordingly (say by changing to a more distant lane)?

That is a beautifully clear explanation.

Can you do one for monads?

I don't know the answer to your question.

I can say that ethics is a core part of engineering curriculum from day one, and one is repeatedly reminded that one is expected to exercise their "moral agency".

I agree about safety critical areas (what about financial?). Nevertheless, my understanding is that the principals at engineering consulting firms must have a PE, and so if that is true, what about software consulting firms?

> Also, isn't the whole point of engineering to screw around looking for something new where we don't know a lot.

If anything, that's the diametrical opposite of engineering. One of the objections to "software engineering" as an engineering discipline is that there isn't enough history from which to draw conclusions on best practices.

> The "work only in an area of competence" sounds a lot like let's bring back apprenticeship and try and create a static craft instead of endorsing dynamic exploration in field where we assume most things aren't yet discovered.

One point of professional licensure is to demonstrate a minimum level of competence. Practicing outside of one's area of demonstrated competence defeats this purpose of licensure. Nothing prevents a mechanical engineer from designing a circuit, but they sure as hell aren't going to stamp that circuit diagram.

I've been considering going after licensure. Curious to hear your thoughts on the experience?