licensure

There are simply no definitions of software fields that have the rigor for such objective evaluations and licensure.

It stems from concepts that are well-known among my colleagues and have been tested on each of my licensure exams.

If simulation were perfect, no one would need real flying hours for licensure or type qualification.

Self-expression is a nonsensical reason and in any case no grounds for state licensure.

In the States and the UK there is no licensure for professional software engineers (with a few exceptions like Texas and Florida).

One point of professional licensure is to demonstrate a minimum level of competence.

Practicing outside of one's area of demonstrated competence defeats this purpose of licensure.

For some strange reason, the idea of this being the Uber for haircuts, even down to the flagrant disobedience of licensure, is hilarious to me.

I'm an epidemiologist, I've with post-licensure trial data, and I'm pretty for government oversight.

Personally, I don't see how much of a difference licensure will make for safety-critical projects given that regulated industries are already, well, regulated.

Respectfully, I think programmer licensure is an oversimplification of the problem.

Well for professions such as accounting, engineering, or law that require a degree for licensure, yes.

This is the fundamental problem with licensure: you start with the premise of "there are bad and/or incompetent people", then try to solve it by...

"The big one" implies nobody's going to care about licensure or not using the public airwaves for encrypted communications.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the US "life coach" requires no sort of training or licensure.

"Engineer" implies someone who has completed study and passed objective evaluations of competency, as well as licensure to practice their profession.