Firefox just quantumed me, and they didn't ask first.
@literorrery Yeah, all the mainstream browsers have taken massive turns for the worst lately.
I've been trying out other browser options... and I've got bad news for you.
@mawr computer bad
@literorrery computer v bad
@mawr @literorrery computer good, consent violating software v bad
@kelseyhusky @mawr computer good engineer bad.
@literorrery @mawr engineer good, product manager out of touch? feature manager dismissive of edge-cases?
@kelseyhusky @mawr I think this is where I have to break voice and say that "engineer" is a term I use in a heavily jargoned way, likely unfairly, to indicate that the developer/designer/programmer has only gotten as far as whether something is possible without questioning whether it's desirable, beneficial, or well-considered. Folks who don't test failure paths. Folks who reject accessibility concerns. Folks who require firstname-lastname on forms that only need an identifier.
@mawr @kelseyhusky There's a book I love immensely, called "The Nanotech Chronicles" by Michael Flynn, in which somebody notes that every technological change is a social change in disguise, and that it's the job of every technologist to consider the social impact of technology. Engineers are, jargonistically, technologists that refuse to consider the social aspects of technology.
@literorrery @mawr @kelseyhusky This kinda seems at odds with the professional engineer ethos born out the Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse. I'd more say "Software Engineers" just haven't earned the title of engineer.
@IrisKalmia @mawr @kelseyhusky I'm totally willing to accept that. I'm just steeped in "software engineering" as a metaphor -- it's even on my business cards at work -- and I know just how little resemblance that has with the truth.
It's a weird form of disempowerment and frustration for me. I hear people calling themselves this and I even do it because I know it implies a certain cachet that makes me more hireable, but I know most people don't design with these concerns in mind.
@kelseyhusky @literorrery @mawr It really should, it has every bit the potential to cause harm as a poorly designed dam or building.
@IrisKalmia @kelseyhusky @mawr These days, no disrespect to any civil engineer intended, the potential for harm in the software field is higher. We control shit like air traffic control systems, heart-lung machines, drive-by-wire systems for cars, trading systems. Our capacity for harm is legion, our responsibility immense, and our time to figure out that we own our mistakes as well as our successes is very short.
@literorrery @IrisKalmia @kelseyhusky SAME.
If software engineering had official regulated standards to adhere to, it might slow down development but at least we wouldn't have so many instances of "it compiles [and has unprotected access to private user data]? GREAT! Ship it!"
Compliance with SOX, PCI and EU privacy laws are as close as we've gotten to proper responsibility in that regard & it's nowhere near enough. Having the autonomous power to show-stop over security concerns'd be a GODSEND.
@literorrery @mawr @IrisKalmia There has been precious little incentive to think about those concerns and even more incentive is given to ignore concerns for testing, accessability, and whether a feature is even wanted in favor of agility, rapidity of releases, and doing whatever is required to not only increase market share, but to /take away/ share from other products. Those incentives can range from more money to simply getting yelled at less by those in power over a developer.
@kelseyhusky @mawr @IrisKalmia Frankly, I wish software development _did_ have to confirm to the standards of engineering as a field.