4 ms·

Idk licensing and regulation sounds like involving more institutional arrogance. We effectively have that kind of gatekeeping now with the University degree an

Idk licensing and regulation sounds like involving more institutional arrogance. We effectively have that kind of gatekeeping now with the University degree and University recruiting pipelines (all other candidates are "external" and illegally deprioritized but it's somehow allowed). The CTO shouldn't have to pay, the company should. And then maybe they will be incentivized to hire somebody who knows what they're doing. Licensing just gatekeeps it more to even more dumbass people with connections getting good roles. It should be more merit based to avoid this kind of thing. People who have done it a thousand times should get that job, not some dumb kid who just got out of school.

QuadmasterXLII 1mo ago
this idea that government regulation is the problem and the companies need economic incentives to self regulate is a religion around here, and after incredible amounts of evidence that is untrue, like all religions, it’s practitioners have made zero changes to their opinion.
- perpetuallunch 1mo ago
  There is exactly zero evidence that any religion isn’t true. How could there be? Evolution can’t disprove the existence of God.
  - arethuza 1mo ago
    All depends which god we are disproving the existence of?
    - purplemoonx 1mo ago
      Prove Zeus didn't fart the Earth into existence, otherwise that's what happened
      - goatlover 1mo ago
        Welcome to Invisible Pink Unicorns and orbiting tea pots. You're just a fleeting experience of a Boltzmann Brain in the background of high entropy universe. We don't need to disprove radically skeptical or outlandish beliefs. They're not consistent with everything else we know. There's no good reason to take them seriously.
        purplemoonx 1mo ago
        [dead]
  - purplemoonx 1mo ago
    Allow me to introduce you to: Burden of Proof.
    - perpetuallunch 1mo ago
      I can prove God exists is the same sense that you can explain why there isn’t simply nothing at all.
      - purplemoonx 1mo ago
        Material existence != a guy flying around in space listening to your thoughts
  - antonvs 1mo ago
    The primary evidence that religions aren’t “true” are the religious texts themselves: filled with easily disproved falsehoods and a primitive understanding of the world. Evolution is not compatible with creation myths. The biblical Exodus never happened. Jesus was barely noticed historically, i.e. extra-biblically. The issue is not “disproving the existence of God”, any more than we have to disprove the existence of Frodo Baggins. (Which gods, btw?) The question should be, why should we take these obvious myths as anything more than that? The answer is that there’s no reason to.
    - perpetuallunch 1mo ago
      Ultimately science can’t explain why there is anything at all, rather than the more likely scenario of there simply being nothing. It’s not a question science can answer. Once there is something, rather than the obviously more likely nothing at all, science won’t help you understand why physics > chemistry > biology is ever so precisely tuned to be able to give rise to everything necessary for complex life to arise. Without resorting to circular reasoning. There’s definitely an aspect of mythos in the, well, “creation myths”. The religious texts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have anything but a primitive understanding of the human condition, the human world. My understanding of the worlds other great religions is very limited, other than to say they appear to have served their adherents well enough to have got them this far. The problems the world faces today are primarily those of frivolity, corruption, excess. No amount of science is going to help there.
      - antonvs 1mo ago
        > Once there is something, rather than the obviously more likely nothing at all Why is that "obviously more likely"? It's clear that you haven't really thought about this outside of the confines of your indoctrinated religion. > ever so precisely tuned to be able to give rise to everything necessary for complex life to arise. Citation needed. This is just mythical nonsense that doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny. Not to mention that the argument "we can't perfectly explain the universe, therefore 'god'" is so ridiculously nonsensical that it makes me question whether or not I'm talking to an intelligent being. > The problems the world faces today are primarily those of frivolity, corruption, excess. No amount of science is going to help there. No, ethics will help. That's the domain of philosophy. There's no ethical religion in the world today, because they all delegate ethics to an imaginary source with no evidence. Perhaps you want to claim that Christianity is ethical? Oh yes? What's its position on gender equality, on gay people, etc.? And why does it hold that position? Because "God" supposedly said something to some Bronze Age goat herders 4000 years ago? It's absolutely incredible and insane that anyone with even a minimal modern education would believe such nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, not least because of the damaging "ethics" that your religion has convinced you to believe and to inflict on the people around you. Shame. The reason you're even discussing this is because somewhere, deep inside, you recognize that you've been sold a bill of goods. It's time to become an adult now, and put away childish things.
- toomuchtodo 1mo ago
  As a cybersecurity practitioner, regulation and oversight is the only incentive that moves the needle in my experience. If there are no costs or negative outcomes for not caring about security, security will not be prioritized. Big fan of SEC Breach Reporting via Form 8-K, as well as state reporting requirements. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gerding-cybersecurity-incidents-05212024 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gerding-cyb... https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/security-breach-notification-laws https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/security-b...
- purplemoonx 1mo ago
  Kinda feel like you get corruption no matter if it's pure socialism or pure capitalism, and that any system is a reflection of the people.
mschuster91 1mo ago
> Idk licensing and regulation sounds like involving more institutional arrogance. Well it works. Aviation for example is incredibly safe if you think about it, and mostly because the governments worldwide joined forces and introduced an amount of safety regulations everywhere that sounds insane until you remember that these rules were literally written in blood. And similarly, losing your life or getting injured on a modern ship is a pretty rare thing to happen (either as employee or passenger) if you contrast it with the situation just five decades or so ago. > We effectively have that kind of gatekeeping now with the University degree and University recruiting pipelines (all other candidates are "external" and illegally deprioritized but it's somehow allowed). Degree mills aren't the kind of gatekeeping I'm talking about. If you screw up, you still can go to another company and continue screwing up there, which also means there is barely any incentive to hold education institutions accountable to deliver good education. In the regulated trades however? Screw up enough and you're out for good. > Licensing just gatekeeps it more to even more dumbass people with connections getting good roles. It should be more merit based to avoid this kind of thing. Trades licensing is merit based.
- bluGill 1mo ago
  > Trades licensing is merit based. Only on the bottom end. People with zero merit get forced out - eventually in most cases. However a lot of people who have merit are not allowed in.
  - mschuster91 1mo ago
    > People with zero merit get forced out - eventually in most cases. Yeah but in many cases often only after decades and still with a sizable final paycheck on departure. "Failing upwards" is a thing, and it happens far too often.
- purplemoonx 1mo ago
  Commercial aviation involves other people's lives in real-time. I put that more like being a lifeguard or EMT. Recreational aviation has a lot less regulation. I saw a guy with nothing but a fan and a parachute just flying around the cliffs off Hwy 1. No license or certification needed. Shouldn't need a license to make React components, sorry.

QuadmasterXLII 1mo ago

this idea that government regulation is the problem and the companies need economic incentives to self regulate is a religion around here, and after incredible amounts of evidence that is untrue, like all religions, it’s practitioners have made zero changes to their opinion.

perpetuallunch 1mo ago
There is exactly zero evidence that any religion isn’t true. How could there be? Evolution can’t disprove the existence of God.
- arethuza 1mo ago
  All depends which god we are disproving the existence of?
  - purplemoonx 1mo ago
    Prove Zeus didn't fart the Earth into existence, otherwise that's what happened
    - goatlover 1mo ago
      Welcome to Invisible Pink Unicorns and orbiting tea pots. You're just a fleeting experience of a Boltzmann Brain in the background of high entropy universe. We don't need to disprove radically skeptical or outlandish beliefs. They're not consistent with everything else we know. There's no good reason to take them seriously.
      - purplemoonx 1mo ago
        [dead]
- purplemoonx 1mo ago
  Allow me to introduce you to: Burden of Proof.
  - perpetuallunch 1mo ago
    I can prove God exists is the same sense that you can explain why there isn’t simply nothing at all.
    - purplemoonx 1mo ago
      Material existence != a guy flying around in space listening to your thoughts
- antonvs 1mo ago
  The primary evidence that religions aren’t “true” are the religious texts themselves: filled with easily disproved falsehoods and a primitive understanding of the world. Evolution is not compatible with creation myths. The biblical Exodus never happened. Jesus was barely noticed historically, i.e. extra-biblically. The issue is not “disproving the existence of God”, any more than we have to disprove the existence of Frodo Baggins. (Which gods, btw?) The question should be, why should we take these obvious myths as anything more than that? The answer is that there’s no reason to.
  - perpetuallunch 1mo ago
    Ultimately science can’t explain why there is anything at all, rather than the more likely scenario of there simply being nothing. It’s not a question science can answer. Once there is something, rather than the obviously more likely nothing at all, science won’t help you understand why physics > chemistry > biology is ever so precisely tuned to be able to give rise to everything necessary for complex life to arise. Without resorting to circular reasoning. There’s definitely an aspect of mythos in the, well, “creation myths”. The religious texts of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, have anything but a primitive understanding of the human condition, the human world. My understanding of the worlds other great religions is very limited, other than to say they appear to have served their adherents well enough to have got them this far. The problems the world faces today are primarily those of frivolity, corruption, excess. No amount of science is going to help there.
    - antonvs 1mo ago
      > Once there is something, rather than the obviously more likely nothing at all Why is that "obviously more likely"? It's clear that you haven't really thought about this outside of the confines of your indoctrinated religion. > ever so precisely tuned to be able to give rise to everything necessary for complex life to arise. Citation needed. This is just mythical nonsense that doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny. Not to mention that the argument "we can't perfectly explain the universe, therefore 'god'" is so ridiculously nonsensical that it makes me question whether or not I'm talking to an intelligent being. > The problems the world faces today are primarily those of frivolity, corruption, excess. No amount of science is going to help there. No, ethics will help. That's the domain of philosophy. There's no ethical religion in the world today, because they all delegate ethics to an imaginary source with no evidence. Perhaps you want to claim that Christianity is ethical? Oh yes? What's its position on gender equality, on gay people, etc.? And why does it hold that position? Because "God" supposedly said something to some Bronze Age goat herders 4000 years ago? It's absolutely incredible and insane that anyone with even a minimal modern education would believe such nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourself, not least because of the damaging "ethics" that your religion has convinced you to believe and to inflict on the people around you. Shame. The reason you're even discussing this is because somewhere, deep inside, you recognize that you've been sold a bill of goods. It's time to become an adult now, and put away childish things.
toomuchtodo 1mo ago
As a cybersecurity practitioner, regulation and oversight is the only incentive that moves the needle in my experience. If there are no costs or negative outcomes for not caring about security, security will not be prioritized. Big fan of SEC Breach Reporting via Form 8-K, as well as state reporting requirements. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gerding-cybersecurity-incidents-05212024 https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/gerding-cyb... https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/security-breach-notification-laws https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/security-b...
purplemoonx 1mo ago
Kinda feel like you get corruption no matter if it's pure socialism or pure capitalism, and that any system is a reflection of the people.

mschuster91 1mo ago

> Idk licensing and regulation sounds like involving more institutional arrogance. Well it works. Aviation for example is incredibly safe if you think about it, and mostly because the governments worldwide joined forces and introduced an amount of safety regulations everywhere that sounds insane until you remember that these rules were literally written in blood. And similarly, losing your life or getting injured on a modern ship is a pretty rare thing to happen (either as employee or passenger) if you contrast it with the situation just five decades or so ago. > We effectively have that kind of gatekeeping now with the University degree and University recruiting pipelines (all other candidates are "external" and illegally deprioritized but it's somehow allowed). Degree mills aren't the kind of gatekeeping I'm talking about. If you screw up, you still can go to another company and continue screwing up there, which also means there is barely any incentive to hold education institutions accountable to deliver good education. In the regulated trades however? Screw up enough and you're out for good. > Licensing just gatekeeps it more to even more dumbass people with connections getting good roles. It should be more merit based to avoid this kind of thing. Trades licensing is merit based.

bluGill 1mo ago
> Trades licensing is merit based. Only on the bottom end. People with zero merit get forced out - eventually in most cases. However a lot of people who have merit are not allowed in.
- mschuster91 1mo ago
  > People with zero merit get forced out - eventually in most cases. Yeah but in many cases often only after decades and still with a sizable final paycheck on departure. "Failing upwards" is a thing, and it happens far too often.
purplemoonx 1mo ago
Commercial aviation involves other people's lives in real-time. I put that more like being a lifeguard or EMT. Recreational aviation has a lot less regulation. I saw a guy with nothing but a fan and a parachute just flying around the cliffs off Hwy 1. No license or certification needed. Shouldn't need a license to make React components, sorry.