You’re mad she did her job

Yes. Just following orders isn't an excuse

It's not literal, it's sort of a slang thing. Basically just means anyone seeking to get people locked up

Part of that is just a lot of funny tv people are mean spirited in their jokes, but may be nicer when not on TV

I shouldn't be trusted if I hire without vetting and hand over control of a massive project to someone off the street without any QA controls, code review, or automated testing.

Yeah every time I've ever looked into it there's always someone talking about "protecting the field from amateurs".

Which I really don't get, because to my knowledge no disproportionate amount of problems has been caused by self-taught devs.

It really feels more like either elitism or wanting to protect wages.

Licensure isn't about how good you are. It's about ensuring that you, as a professional, understand the ramifications of your contributions to the work you do and the field you are a part of and accepting the responsibility of those ramifications.

1. Does it have a record across industries of demonstrably doing that? I don't believe so.

2. Is there any evidence of that actually being a problem amongst self-taught devs? (And not a problem amongst traditionally degree'd devs?)

In my experience, self-taught devs have a higher sense of responsibility when it comes to code than fresh grads or boot-camp devs. But of course once someone's been working for a bit it all evens out.

Do we allow for self taught doctors or accountants?

Is this limitation good? Furthermore, software development is something very easy to learn with 0 consequences.

Also, these regulations aren't being developed for all servers, just ones that can cause major economic damage if they stop functioning.

Many of those have excellent self-taught devs developing software for them- I know some of them.

And you don't need everyone to be qualified to run the service. How many water treatment pants are there where you only have a small set of managers running the plant, but most people aren't licensed to do so?

1. Maintenance is very different from software development.

2. Good software development requires at minimum expansive automated testing...

Because a decade of professional experience is a long time, and doesn't value independent experience. I've been coding for over 11 years, but professionally only a couple. Also software development is very international, how would that even be managed when working with self-taught people across continents?

I agree developers should be responsible, but licensing isn't it, when there are 16 year olds that are better devs than master's graduates.

Yeaaa that's not exactly a solution

Software engineering is too wide and deep for licensing to be feasible without a degree program- which would be a massive slap in the face to the millions of skilled self taught devs.

Unions often create barriers to new people entering a field and driving wages down. This is an issue for many devs, like me, because I don't have a degree, I'm self taught and freelance- I'm worried I'd be forced out of the field or into more formal employment by licensing or other requirements. Neither of which I want.

They're livable, but can also be really bad depending on the maintenance of the building and the previous tenants. The problem is the terrible design of some panelák style dorms- see Strahov, which is a dystopia for many reasons.

It is kinda trolling how you can just call an election when you think your party will do best

That is called psychopathy and you should seek clinical intervention.

Do you care about the lives of sardines? Is a chicken much different? How is that not arbitrary?

Nihilism is the belief that morality is arbitrary

No, that simply isn't the definition of nihilism.

If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.

And that is where you will find your answer, I have a personal intuition both about what lives I value- I don't believe all pointless killing is bad, regardless of life form, I don't care if someone pulls up the plants in their yard because they feel like it. And you clearly value some life less than human life given that you eat to exist.

An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.

What? You understand an intuitive belief can exist for all of those things right?

What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species?

Pretty obvious, I care about the lives of some species and not others. (Do you take antibiotics?). It is based on some framework, that is ultimately based on intuition as well.

Your moral reasoning is inconsistent

It may be, but not for the reason you claimed. I do not care about the lives of most animals, such as chickens, etc. Do you care about the lives of animals? Is it okay to kill them? What about torture them?

From my belief framework I suspect I could find inconsistencies in your morality, but I don't really see the point in trying to force squeeze your moral views through my belief framework- because I suspect your morality informs your beliefs and vice-versa- just as my own.

This is literally nihilism.

No, it's not.

Nihilism requires intentionally rejecting morality. Accepting that any belief is inherently arbitrary, but still caring about that, is not nihilism

Oh, xd

No, it happens to the same extent in basically anywhere that's populated and can afford to enforce it