Well apparently it’s programmed to bypass the safety system after 3 attempts under the assumption that the user knows best.
This seems like a really dumb choice, but I can see why an engineer would want to point out that it’s not incompetent engineering but an incompetent business department.
That’s called accountability and that’s why engineers get paid extra. Ethic classes are not the part of engineering degrees in the USA very obviously, I shouldn’t be surprised
I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
If you have to rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy to do the heavy lifting for your argument, I suppose you’re correct that there’s nothing left to discuss.
Personally, I learned long ago not to close my hand in a door after the first attempt. I suppose there’s a reason why some people need safety warnings not to use their toaster in the bathtub, and we should all live by those standards.
Well apparently it’s programmed to bypass the safety system after 3 attempts under the assumption that the user knows best.
This seems like a really dumb choice, but I can see why an engineer would want to point out that it’s not incompetent engineering but an incompetent business department.
If you’re implementing it, it’s your responsibility, end of story.
if you don’t implement it, it will get implemented by someone else anyway and you’re putting your job at risk
Someone will be blamed, if you carry it out then you share the blame.
That’s called accountability and that’s why engineers get paid extra. Ethic classes are not the part of engineering degrees in the USA very obviously, I shouldn’t be surprised
How can you talk about personal responsibility while blaming engineers for the fact that this guy intentionally closed his finger in a car door?
Please read the comment I was originally answering to.
I did read it and I’m also reading it in the context of the article and the rabid group-think here claiming that a potential injury after closing your hand in a door four times in a row is somehow the companies fault or the fault of the engineering department.
If you think disabling or weakening safety features after multiple attempts is OK, there is nothing left to discuss with you on this topic.
If you have to rely on the appeal to emotion fallacy to do the heavy lifting for your argument, I suppose you’re correct that there’s nothing left to discuss.
Personally, I learned long ago not to close my hand in a door after the first attempt. I suppose there’s a reason why some people need safety warnings not to use their toaster in the bathtub, and we should all live by those standards.