Altering the power of the assist shouldn't make this any more dangerous. Worse case, you lose power assist. Although that's bit GM hard lately with their ignition switch recall.
That's by biggest concern with this: if you engine stalls or turns off (for whatever) reason, do you completely lose steering, or you just lose power assist? There is a huge difference, even though suddenly losing assist can cause trouble.
You CANNOT change the meaning of words in advertisement. You can only advertise minimum data-rates when advertising connection speeds.
Great, this is groundbreaking. All ads now read: OFFERING 0 MBPS! Just because your ISP provides up to X Mbps, doesn't mean whomever you're talking to can actually supply it that fast. If someone connects a server to the internet on a 1200 baud modem, is it my ISP's fault that I can't download faster than several bytes a second? Or, what if I'm trying to access a site that is being DOS'd? Is that *my ISP's* fault? What you're suggesting is a step back, not forward.
I'm not advocating "fast lanes" or non-net neutrality, but what you suggest is so asinine, that when I tried to see things from your perspective, I failed, because I can't shove my head that far up my ass.
Personally, I've had days where 5-10,000 lines of C++ happened. Those are extremely few, and very far between, and the result of weeks of mental churning over how to solve a problem. What non-programmers don't realize is that 99% of development isn't the physical act of writing the code, it's identifying the problem and figuring out the solution. You can't write the code until you've done both.
LOC could be a relatively naive metric for a new code base, but if you're talking about adding onto an existing code base, immediately divide by 10 or more LOC output.
I've had days where the only commit to fix a bug was to alter 1 character. How long did that take? 8 hours. Why? No, it didn't take 8 hours to alter a character. It took 8 hours to identify which of the half-million characters to alter, make the change, build it, document it, and test it.
Another difference is that traditionally licensed Professional Engineers have to accept personal liability for designs they sign off on. Companies may accept the liability, but at the end of the day, a licensed engineer has to sign their individual name to a building or bridge design (at least of a certain significant scale). There may be a number of engineers involved, but if a structure fails or a building catches fire due to an engineering defect, you will most assuredly be able to find the engineer(s) that signed off on the design. (at least in the US).
Also, it's unclear to me what you qualify as a minor civil engineering defect. Just last week, here on
See IEEE Code of Ethics (a simple, yet succinct and to-the-point code), and ACM's Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice. Even reading section 1 of the ACM code, it is abundantly clear it is not being legally enforced. In particular 1.03 & 1.06 jump out at me.
Problem is, professional ethics codes are generally not legally binding unless you are professionally licensed in a discipline by the state, and the licensing indicates the code of ethics that must be followed. Additionally, the ethics code might only apply if you are officially acting within your licensed capacity. (I error on the side of caution in that I assume everything I do professionally falls subject to my licensed discipline - just in case). Some states refer to professional organizations for the code of ethics (i.e. for Electrical Engineers, the IEEE code may be referenced), some states may provide their own code of ethics. I'm also unaware of any US states that professionally license software engineers.
I personally had one instance at my previous employer where my boss asked my to do something unethical, and illegal. I stalled for two weeks while I debated resigning or blowing the whistle to HR on my boss (and also possibly resigning). In the end, I didn't have to do either, because my boss was fired in that time for unrelated things and I was never asked by another manager to do the same action.
Don't they stop employees from taking any kind of IP and running away with it, which would basically kill the industry?
You're confusing non-compete with a non-disclosure agreement. Non-competes are generally illegal/unenforceable and rarely upheld, unless the company you're coming from pays you to effectively remain out of the employment market for a period of time. Non disclosures are absolutely enforceable (and these are about taking IP from one company to your next), and is usually what gets former employees in trouble. I'm under an NDA from my last employer, and a non-solicitation through the first week of next month. I'm not under a non-compete, and the company I now work for indirectly competes with my former employer. But, I still can't divulge any trade secrets I know of to my current employer (not that I can't tell my new employer how *not* to do something based upon knowledge).