TBH it's not easy to get 98 people to engage with a bottom of the list comment so clearly some part of it is botted, which tracks because I'm pissing off sloppers and slopper admins every time I visit this instance.
idk about grue but imo that depends on the requirements of the title. If you need to be a real engineer capable of doing real engineering work to claim it then by all means.
If you need less than 14 math credits and only general ed science requirements, then no.
It's possible to learn how to do some limited engineering while working towards a comp sci degree but it doesn't magically turn every task you perform into engineering. Programming isn't engineering.
You're on Lemmy so you'd be better off learning Mandarin or Russian.
Words which indicate a minimun amount of trained and proven competence or authority, such as Doctor or Police Lieutenant, are not things you can just claim willy nilly.
I only consider Engineering to be the application of math and science to plan complex systems or structures.
If a person is doing that as a programmer then they have to already understand computer architecture to a bare minimum of how memory works physically, processor functionality, and discreet mathematics: which makes them a computer engineer.
If a person completely lacks understanding of math or physics behind the machines they code for then I don't care how complicated their derivative work is: it is not engineering. Much like how painting is not engineering nor is balancing a stack of rocks.
They could certainly try that but historically not how drafts work at all. You can't discriminate draft based on political affiliation, it would just get tied up in courts over first amendment rights.
Mixed feelings because obviously studying for a degree implies maths and sciences which does qualify you as an engineer, but imo "software engineer" isn't a real thing. You're either a computer engineer or a code monkey.
The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for cable systems which received signals by microwave antennas. In 1966, the Commission established rules for all cable systems (whether or not served by microwave). The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission's jurisdiction over cable in United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157 (1968). The Court ruled that "the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authority over CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities."
TBH it's not easy to get 98 people to engage with a bottom of the list comment so clearly some part of it is botted, which tracks because I'm pissing off sloppers and slopper admins every time I visit this instance.