[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I hesitate, because I shudder at government deciding which algorithm is best for a given scenario ( because that is effectively is where it would go ). Maybe the distinction is, the moment money changes hands based on product?

I am not an engineer, but I have watched clearly bad decisions take place from technical perspective so that a person with title that went to their head and a bonus that is not aligned with right incentives mess things up for us. Maybe some proffesionalization of software engineering is in order.

[snovv_crash]

This isn't a matter of the government saying what you need to do. This is a matter of being held criminally liable if people get hurt.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

You are only technically correct. And even then, in terms of civics, by having people held criminally liable government is telling you what to do ( or technically not do ). Note that no other body can ( legally ) do it. In fact, false imprisonment is in itself a punishable offense, but I digress..

Now, we could argue over whether that is/should/could/would be the law of the land, but have you considered how it would be enforced?

I mean, I can tell you first hand what it looks like, when government gives you a vague law for an industry to figure out and an enforcement agency with a broad mandate.

That said, I may have exaggerated a little bit on the algo choice. I was shooting for ghoulish overkill.

[freejazz]

> You are only technically correct

You clearly have no idea how civil liability works. At all.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I am here to learn. You can help me by educating me. I do mean it sincerely. If you think you have a grasp on the subject, I think HN as a whole could benefit from your expertise.

[freejazz]

Civil liability isn't determined by the "gov't" it's determined by a jury of your peers. More interesting to me is how you came to the impression that you had any idea what you were talking about to the point you felt justified in making your post.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

My friend. Thank you. It is not often I get to be myself lately. Allow me to retort in kind.

Your original response to my response was in turn a response to the following sentence by "snovv_crash":

"This isn't a matter of the government saying what you need to do. This is a matter of being held criminally liable if people get hurt."

I do want to point out that from the beginning the narrow scope of this argument defined the type of liability as criminal and not civil as your post suggested. In other words, your whole point kinda falls apart as I was not talking about civil liability, but about the connection of civics and government's ( or society's depending on your philosophical bent ) monopoly on violence.

It is possible that the word civic threw you off, but I was merely referring to the study of the rights, duties, and obligations of citizens in a society. Surely, you would agree that writing code that kills people would be under the purview of the rights, duties and obligations of individuals in a society?

In either case, I am not sure what are you arguing for here, It is not just that you are wrong, but you seem to be oddly focused on trying to .. not even sure. Maybe I should ask you instead.

<<More interesting to me is how you came to the impression that you had any idea what you were talking about to the point you felt justified in making your post.

Yes, good question. Now that I replied I feel it would not be a bad idea ( edit: for you ) to present why you feel ( and I use that verb consciously ) you can just throw salad willy-nilly not only with confidence, but, clearly, justification worthy of a justicar.

tldr: You are wrong, but can you even accept that you are wrong.. now that will be an interesting thing to see.

<< that you had any idea

I am a guy on the internet man. No one has any idea about anything. Cheer up:D