[mschuster91]

> This is a prime example of why programmers are not seriously considered engineers.

The problem isn't the programmers ffs. In your industry, if your superior orders you (or creates the incentive) to hide bad stuff under the rug, you have the ability to push back, at least to some degree.

Programmers? We don't have that. Maybe the few of us who actually work on security critical stuff, but some generic AI BS? No chance. You're being treated as a cog.

[Arainach]

All sorts of employees are treated as disposable. The issue is absolutely that software engineers have no culture of responsibility or safety and no professional licensing group to enforce it for them.

[dolkycape]

The professional licensing group is what creates the culture of responsibility. Most developers would be happy to have that as it would limit supply and increase wages considerably.

[brailsafe]

> no culture of responsibility or safety and no professional licensing group to enforce it for them.

Naturopaths and chiropractors are licensed to do various things too, physicians, etc.. a license does not imply that there would otherwise exist a culture of responsibility, foundation in evidence or anything of the sort. It's an incentive structure and regulatory practice. One may even keep their license while being a monster and abusing other incentive structures that don't have a bearing on that license.

Software engineers are not typically licensed as engineers, that's all one can say without dipping into prejudice.

[qznc]

I'm working on automotive safety-critical security-critical stuff. There is structure and bureaucracy around this stuff.

For example, a project gets a safety managers assigned who has to sign off the release. Project management is explicitly not superior to this safety manager. In most cases these safety managers are just there review stuff according to some process guidelines. If there is pressure (project is late, etc), there are more senior safety managers to call in and they will usually make more nuanced safety arguments (in this specific case, violate this guideline, but at least do X as mitigation).

In the end there is bureaucracy. Things need to be signed and archived for potential law suits. Not having archived things will be even worse in the law suits.

The upside: As a programmer, you don't need to argue that you need some time for unit testing.

The downside: 100% test coverage is mandatory and it really gets enforced.