4 ms·
> Perhaps your architecture wouldn't "compile" if the network traffic will go the wrong place, or if a rate limit is above the capacity something is expected to
by BinaryIdiot 10y ago
> Perhaps your architecture wouldn't "compile" if the network traffic will go the wrong place, or if a rate limit is above the capacity something is expected to handle, or if the change would impact too many servers at once.
This is an interesting idea. I'm always terrified when I have to deploy a minor configuration change into a production system that gets distributed out; if there was an easy way to apply some sort of check against all of it (you know without having to build something explicitly to do this) that would be awesome.
I wonder if the future of something like this might be using containers. Each piece that gets deployed is in its own container networked together and you stand it up in a staging environment, ensure it's talking together correctly through some sort of set of integration tests then push it into the production environment.
- lima 10y agoIn many cases you can do staged or partial rollouts, observe error rates or whatever suitable metrics you have, and then continue with the next bunch of servers.
- DigitalJack 10y agoI wish the law could be statically checked. In the US at least you are, at any given moment, likely breaking a law because for each and every law, there is one that contradicts it (at least partially).
- tener 10y agoQuite likely you'd first have to invent strong AI which would give you a chance of defining a coherent theory of law which is really a tangled mess. Pretty sure no human has capacity to do it on their own in the foreseeable future.
- DigitalJack 10y agoI think I'd approach the problem from the other end, find a way to write laws such that they are checkable with assertions, properties, and constraints.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoThis would be amazing. If we had this the first line of judges could just be automated. Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Then if you appeal you can seek a human judge in case judgement / exceptions need to be made (so say you technically broke a law but it was actually necessary / a good thing then you have recourse). First appeals could be very quick, less traffic to first human judge, etc. Hell even without automated the justice system just doing as you suggested alone would be amazing. I've often wondered about putting laws in GIT or similar.
- plttn 10y ago> Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Would you be willing to trust a program with your sentence? I wouldn't in the slightest.
- BinaryIdiot 10y agoYes but only with the provisions I added that you didn't include in your quote :) (e.g. quick, efficient appeals process to where I can talk with a human judge). Plus the laws would have to be written in this fashion so it would be far, far less murky than what it is today. So that's a lot of ifs and provisions...so I wouldn't expect this to happen ever.
- peenix 10y agoYou make me sick
- vertex-four 10y agoYou realise that humans are very, very good at figuring out what just doesn't count as breaking an extremely strictly defined law, right?
- im4w1l 10y agoThis can be solved by proportional punishments. Then just not breaking the law, and just breaking the law gives similar outcomes (nothing vs slap on wrist)
- ikeboy 10y agoRelevant: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
- truncate 10y agoReminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem which says that you can't have a set of axioms which are both complete and consistent. I don't understand law or this theorem (and its implications) well enough, but I felt this has some relation here.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]