Other fields of engineering usually have a regulated licensure, upon which they can call themselves a Professional Engineer. This gives them the ability to make final approval/sign-off on designs and technical reports. It's most common in civil engineering, where a PE license is required for all publicly funded projects (and most privately funded ones as well, due to local/regional/national regulations) to be approved.

This license requires the holder to uphold code of professional ethics, and makes the engineer themselves be personally responsible for the safety and viability of the design itself. Losing a PE license is rare, but it does happen. The industry board (usually a regional board) can also discipline/reprimand engineers who fail to meet the professional standard - rubber stamping projects, personal misconduct, etc. Losing a license is a huge deal, but even reprimands can have a serious negative impact on someone's career.

In the industry the previous commenter works in their hypothetical would absolutely meet the bar for discipline or reprimand.

> You're just describing another standardized incentive structure that you're operating in

Yeah, that’s the point. That incentive structure includes going to prison, and employers aren’t willing to die on that hill because it exposes them to insane liability if they go against a certified Professional Engineer.

The prejudice seems to be everywhere. Unfortunately, to my knowledge.

Eg. architects vs construction engineers vs land surveyors vs construction designers vs urban planners… anyone of them thinks that their profession is more valuable than the others…

The prevalence of calling software development “engineering” was 100% a con job by either self-important nerds or the companies pandering to them in tight job markets.

An example of prejudice? What an extraordinary statement. It’s an example of ethical, competent, responsible professionalism.

The ‘incentive structure’ is non-financial and based on the ethics of valuing other humans. This is a professional duty. To even call it a ‘incentive structure’ feels like it’s missing the point.

It's because the first sentence of the American Society of Civil Engineers code of ethics is:

Members of The American Society of Civil Engineers conduct themselves with integrity and professionalism, and above all else protect and advance the health, safety, and welfare of the public through the practice of Civil Engineering.

The first tenant of a software engineers code of ethics is:

fuck it, make the boss some money.

Or, formally, according to the ACM:

Contribute to society and human well-being.

Which means fuck-all and includes absolutely zero enforcement like it does for real engineering professions. So do us all a favor and don't whine about our discipline's lack of standards while dipshits who call themselves software engineers are tokenmaxxing a pile of shit and SEO optimizing manipulative user environments for profit.

I understand the direction of your comment, engineering doesn't guarantee security either.

Hubris is the single biggest downfall, whether it's pegged on insecurity, or a false sense of knowledge, superiority or entitlement.

The very best and most experienced people I know have deep expertise, and maintain a healthy mistrust of their own work to keep an eye on it and improving it.

Real world experience and run history is a big thing, and people can re-learn the lessons of the past over and over with their egos, or also be open to learning from others to learn quicker.