For some reason "Apple engineer" is used a lot (see title) in discussions around this on both ends (i.e. "he was an engineer and thus knew his stuff/was credible, and he voiced some concerns to friends/family, so let's agree with it being Tesla's fault" vs. "he was an engineer and should have known/anticipated the system's caveats"). The thing is you cannot have it both ways, so I think (and I think we agree) we should not appeal to the driver being an engineer at all.
Yes, both were me. I'll respond since you seem to be implying my responses are incongruent.
Here I was responding to a comment "What hubris to think that your system is so complex that other engineers couldn't understand it." Which is still a bullshit assessment of the argument (which the original comment was about) that you need expertise in specific domains to be able to evaluate code, which I agree with.
My comment you quoted above is that I think that there would be a subset of Tesla engineers (just not the ones that, for example, solely focus on driver systems) that would overlap with Twitter's domain.
> Engineering is about solving part of the problem first, then iterating.
And fraud is about selling solutions to parts of the problems you haven’t yet solved. While there are engineering criticisms of Tesla FSD, that’s not the issue here, so presenting definitions of engineering is a non-sequitur.
Oh really? Where did he study engineering? When did he take the FE exam?
That's not a term that you can throw around all willy-nilly, especially in the context of hardware. Next, are you about to tell me that the CEO of Ford is also an engineer?
> The 1x engineer talks about their car and weekend, the 10x engineer talks about technology.
Probably because the 1x engineer isn’t a complete moron.
You would have to be a complete moron to really care about any of this crap, unless of course you’re helping people. However- you’re not. And if you are, good for you.
Generally agree with the post and I think the proliferation of the engineering term is somewhat problematic, because to a general audience it implies a sort of rigor that isn't always present, see 'software engineer'.
I think Musk is a businessman but I'm not really sure if he's ever done actual engineering work, and the title gives him a sort of undue authority when he speaks on technical matters, for example his statements on the state of AI[1], the progress of autonomous driving, or generally other fantastical statements.
It also takes attention away from the people who deserve it. Say, Tom Mueller at SpaceX, who is responsible for a good amount of actual engineering work but I figure most people haven't even heard of.
Nonsense! Engineer is an education, not a job title. It's no different than Musk calling himself Doctor. He either went to school for years to become an engineer or he isn't one.
Definitely, and if you read my original comment, I defended the engineer because he wasn't using the title as a deception or in soliciting business. Though he was potentially commenting outside his realm of expertise.
What do you mean by that? Rossmann talks about what he doesn't know all the time. He's not an engineer, yet he thinks he can proclaim that Apple is terrible at engineering and runs with it as a foregone conclusion, without ever having an actual engineer take a look or play Devil's Advocate. This seems irresponsible considering the size of his platform, weakens his argument, and is also odd considering many engineers would happily do a guest appearance.
Maybe it's just me but I'm more tempted to trust engineers who's day-to-day job is engineering rather then a Youtuber who replaces vowels with letters.
But strawman/direct attacks aside.
In my experience when one engineer is disagreeing with a team of engineers, they're wrong or the team a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem they're working to solve.
False dichotomy. "Problems" are difficult to put in meaningful frames, and the engineering value is proportional to how "meaningful" the problem definitions are.
Users experience things they identify as problems, but can't possibly articulate in meaningful frames.
Users only experience symptoms, whereas engineers are responsible for systems. The shortest path to treating the symptoms is almost never a good solution, for either the user experience or the system.
In so far as there are different types of engineers, it might be possible to segment them based on their accountability. Some are accountable only to user demands, some are accountable for long term system stability, and so on. They are not "born" with different mentalities.
> The intention is, that when someone calls them self an engineer, you can have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations.
I thought the intention was that, even if someone didn't have confidence in both their technical ability and moral obligations, it didn't matter. An engineer is a person whose technical decisions are literally protected by law - if they decide to not sign off on something, they don't have to convince anyone and can't face consequences for it (ahem, Quebec bridge[1]). What you're suggesting is just a byproduct of confidence in the system.
reply