A more standard definition in my tenure in academia is that scientists solve problems because they want to know the answer. Engineers solve problems because they want the problem to be solved.

In any case, the difference is just, heh, academic.

I’m very much the latter.

Agreed.

I might also argue that those people are all still engineers.

Engineer just means “problem solver”. Everyone gets paid for solving problems.

The real question in my head is how far does this go?

Sometimes the problem is that these burgers need flipping. Protein disk translocation engineers? I’m cool with that.

I always thought about going to be a farmer. Then I watched some videos from farmers and realized they are also engineers.

A large faction of engineers, especially software-type engineers, have these types of hobbies.

I’m sitting here right beside the heirloom quality (compared to most furniture) coffee table I made in my garage with my nearly complete wood shop.

I make stuff in two ways in my day job. I design something and someone else makes it, or it’s just some idea as software.

Engineers are a type. We’re just wired differently from most other people.

Governments are organized according to political processes rather than rational ones.

Even under ideal conditions, any (especially larger) organizational body is extremely difficult to keep from falling into these types of irrationality.

We have many names for variations on the phenomenon. I’ll cite groupthink. You can fall down a rabbit hole on your own from there.

Pretty much all major books are published as audiobooks as well. Even ones that have computer code written in them, which is not something that you’d ever expect to have read out loud.

It used to be that books would be “narrated for the blind” where not a lot of attention would be put into the audio. Nowadays, there tends to be a lot more effort put into them. I suppose that’s because they don’t need to be packaged as 12 to 20 cassette tapes or CDs any longer.

There’s the added element that a narrator can ruin or improve things. The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is a wonderful book, but the narrator displays an unprofessionally slim knowledge of physics.

Then there’s World War Z. I’m not sure that there’s a better way to tell that story than the audio book. It’s the exact interview style that the author intended.

Orson Scott Card really likes audio books, so the Ender’s Game series is really good.

Oh yeah, and you know the justification for indigenous peoples being granted their land back because their ancestors used to live there, and they were removed?

That’s the exact same situation for Israel. The Jews used to live in Israel until they were kicked out.

Let that complicate your morality.

Also please remember that Europe purchased nearly the entirety of products produced by slaves in the Americas.

If there were no European market there would have been little incentive for American slavery.

I guess the slave free northern states also purchased their fair share, but nothing compared to Europe.

Most people suck at software engineering.

Plus, there’s always the temptation to do it the shitty way and “fix it later” (which never happens).

You pay your technical debt. One way or another.

It’s way worse than any gangster.

Fun fact. One (anecdotal) way of relieving sea sickness is to start driving the boat.

There could be something to it, too. You’d be focusing your eyes on the water and anticipating the motions.

AI is not a meaningful term.

If you ask people if a piece of software that never loses at tic tac toe is AI, most will say yes. Everyone I’ve asked that didn’t already know why I was asking said yes.

I cannot separate that piece of software from any piece of software.

I’ve literally had this conversation with the marketing department. It’s marketing. Tell me what you want to say is AI, and I’ll give you a justification.

Are you responding to my post or one you made up? You seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth.

Of course I mean clade. Of course humans are apes. Of course scientists say birds are dinosaurs. You even say that “no one is arguing that.” And that’s exactly how taxonomy works.

Scientists say “non avian dinosaurs” amazingly often. That statement doesn’t make any sense unless birds are dinosaurs.

You seem to have stumbled on the fact that fish is not a useful term because you cannot come up with a consistent definition of fish that doesn’t include beloved character actor Margo Martindale without excluding things that are obviously fish. It’s the same with “tree”.

You are correct that dinosaurs are not birds, but birds are dinosaurs in the same sense that you are a mammal.