4 ms·
Do you think this interpretation would pass the "put 10 random people in a room and ask them" test? I think the majority would expect to get the advertised spe
by Strilanc 8y ago
Do you think this interpretation would pass the "put 10 random people in a room and ask them" test?
I think the majority would expect to get the advertised speed unconditionally (in particular: not conditioned on using it a lot). And I suspect that most of the people expecting the opposite would be doing so because they heard about someone else being burned by the wording, as opposed to figuring that out for themselves tabula rasa.
- mehrdadn 8y agoWhat exactly would be the question you would ask them? (Also, is that actually the test? I'm not familiar with it.)
- vilmosi 8y agoIt's called the "reasonable person". It's a test used for cases that are not covered by an existing law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person?wprov=sfla1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person?wprov=sfla...
- mehrdadn 8y agoA reasonable person is not a random (or more sensibly, the average) person though. I think a reasonable person would agree with my explanation. I'm not sure the average person would. Edit: Apparently multiple people are misreading and assuming I'm trying to flatter myself here. "A reasonable person" is a pre-defined legal term that I have little choice but to use verbatim here. It's essentially a proper noun, but without capitalization. Specifically, I'm _not_ describing my own rationality when I say "a reasonable person" would agree with me. What I'm saying is that I think the legal "a reasonable person" would reason the same way I just reasoned. If you still don't get what I'm saying: had the legal term instead been "a stupid monkey", then my sentence would have read "a stupid monkey would agree with me".
- vilmosi 8y agoOh, get off your high horse. I'm not sure you read the article. The whole point of a "reasonable person" is that it represents an "average person". > this person is seen to represent a composite of a relevant community's judgement as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public This is why we have a jury of our peers picked at random. The randomness is not random.
- mehrdadn 8y ago> Oh, get off your high horse. I'm not sure you read the article. The whole point of a "reasonable person" is that it represents an "average person". Er, pardon? This isn't my high horse. This is literally your own article's text, which you yourself apparently didn't read: > As a legal fiction, the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person, leading to great difficulties in applying the concept in some criminal cases, especially in regards to the partial defence of provocation.
- stale2002 8y agoThe definition of "reasonable person", in the LEGAL sense is average person. I am not sure why you purposefully misinterpreted the legal definition of the words "reasonable person", according to the courts.
- tomhoward 8y agoHN guidelines: Please don't use uppercase for emphasis. If you want to emphasize a word or phrase, put asterisks* around it and it will get italicized.* I also use _underscores_ sometimes. Does just as good a job at emphasising, but without seeming so shouty.
- mehrdadn 8y agoFar more disturbing than these for me was the parent's assumption of bad faith on my part... :\