6 ms·

My claims are shallow you are 100 percent correct on this. I do not have quantifiable evidence or statistical evidence for this as over complexity is a very ver

My claims are shallow you are 100 percent correct on this. I do not have quantifiable evidence or statistical evidence for this as over complexity is a very very hard thing to measure. In other replies to this thread I have provided my inductive reasoning for why I believe finance is overly complex. To your reply I will provide some counter examples since you cite yourself as an example. If finance wasn’t over complex why does this investigative report require career forensic accountants to dig out the details? If finance reports weren’t over complex why was GE able to hide fraud by simply changing the formatting of their reports once in a while? I’m willing to bet even a finance expert can’t uncover fraud by looking at GE finance statements. They are so complex you need a forensics expert to find it. Another example of over complexity is loop holes in tax law. Loop holes aren’t created intentionally. They are created unintentionally. How? Because complexity of tax law makes the creator of a loop hole unaware that he is creating it. The law maker creates a law to improve the system, the loop hole is created as an unintended consequence hidden by over complexity/ My claims are shallow this much is true. But your claim is equally shallow. Analogies and examples are shallow. If we want to move forward one of us needs a quantifiable measure of over complexity and statistical analysis of this on finance. If neither of us can offer this then we are at a draw.

airstrike 7y ago
> If finance wasn’t over complex why does this investigative report require career forensic accountants to dig out the details? Because this particular company has chosen to produce incredibly complicated financial statements due to a variety of reasons. It's the exception to the rule. Just like the Underhanded C contest[0] doesn't describe the entire universe of computer programming And Tax Law doesn't represent the entirety of the body of Law that governs a country. Law is an entirely different beast because there isn't a BDFL who can refactor the existing code into something meaningful, and there is no unit testing to ensure the any refactored law will work as intended won't have terrible adverse effects. Legislating is a social experiment, and if you've ever been part of a group project you know how hard that can be with a handful of people, let alone hundreds of representatives or millions of voters. My claims are just as deep as they need to be to discredit yours. I'm happy to engage in a deeper debate, but you haven't invited us to one yet. Right now this is just noise, particularly considering that you choose to take the stance of someone who thinks they're right even though they admit to being a layman, instead of asking genuine questions driven by intellectual curiosity and the desire to become better informed. __________ 0. http://www.underhanded-c.org http://www.underhanded-c.org
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >Because this particular company has chosen to produce incredibly complicated financial statements due to a variety of reasons. It's the exception to the rule. The fact that a career with the title "forensic accountant" exists to decode said financial statements mean that there are many many exceptions to the rule. So many exceptions must exist to support such an occupation that it is viable to say finance is overly complex. >And Tax Law doesn't represent the entirety of the body of Law that governs a country. Law is an entirely different beast because there isn't a BDFL who can refactor the existing code into something meaningful, and there is no unit testing to ensure the any refactored law will work as intended won't have terrible adverse effects. Legislating is a social experiment, and if you've ever been part of a group project you know how hard that can be with a handful of people, let alone hundreds of representatives or millions of voters. Tax law doesn't represent the entire body of law but it does represent a significant portion of finance. If that significant portion of finance is as you say a "social experiment" that results in over complexity then tax law is a good example of a part of finance that is overly complex. >Just like the Underhanded C contest[0] doesn't describe the entire universe of computer programming To describe a universe of things you need quantified statistical evidence about the complexity of the system as a whole. I have offered none. You have also offered none. The reason is no such evidence exists. This argument makes no movement until someone can offer such evidence as no one can make a definitive statement about finance until such statistics and quantifiable measurements are offered. >My claims are just as deep as they need to be to discredit yours. I'm happy to engage in a deeper debate, but you haven't invited us to one yet. Right now this is just noise, particularly considering that you choose to take the stance of someone who thinks they're right even though they admit to being a layman, instead of asking genuine questions driven by intellectual curiosity and the desire to become better informed. Your claims offer nothing. You didn't even respond to all my points. This last paragraph is subtle underhanded insult that comments on me personally rather than the argument at hand. I have said this to absolutely no one else in this thread except you. Due to the underhanded subtle personal insults you have stated against me in your last paragraph... you are not invited to engage in deeper debate with me, you are not invited to respond to me and you are encouraged to leave. I will not respond to you anymore. You will note that I have done this to No one else in this thread except you.

airstrike 7y ago

> If finance wasn’t over complex why does this investigative report require career forensic accountants to dig out the details? Because this particular company has chosen to produce incredibly complicated financial statements due to a variety of reasons. It's the exception to the rule. Just like the Underhanded C contest[0] doesn't describe the entire universe of computer programming And Tax Law doesn't represent the entirety of the body of Law that governs a country. Law is an entirely different beast because there isn't a BDFL who can refactor the existing code into something meaningful, and there is no unit testing to ensure the any refactored law will work as intended won't have terrible adverse effects. Legislating is a social experiment, and if you've ever been part of a group project you know how hard that can be with a handful of people, let alone hundreds of representatives or millions of voters. My claims are just as deep as they need to be to discredit yours. I'm happy to engage in a deeper debate, but you haven't invited us to one yet. Right now this is just noise, particularly considering that you choose to take the stance of someone who thinks they're right even though they admit to being a layman, instead of asking genuine questions driven by intellectual curiosity and the desire to become better informed. __________ 0. http://www.underhanded-c.org http://www.underhanded-c.org

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>Because this particular company has chosen to produce incredibly complicated financial statements due to a variety of reasons. It's the exception to the rule. The fact that a career with the title "forensic accountant" exists to decode said financial statements mean that there are many many exceptions to the rule. So many exceptions must exist to support such an occupation that it is viable to say finance is overly complex. >And Tax Law doesn't represent the entirety of the body of Law that governs a country. Law is an entirely different beast because there isn't a BDFL who can refactor the existing code into something meaningful, and there is no unit testing to ensure the any refactored law will work as intended won't have terrible adverse effects. Legislating is a social experiment, and if you've ever been part of a group project you know how hard that can be with a handful of people, let alone hundreds of representatives or millions of voters. Tax law doesn't represent the entire body of law but it does represent a significant portion of finance. If that significant portion of finance is as you say a "social experiment" that results in over complexity then tax law is a good example of a part of finance that is overly complex. >Just like the Underhanded C contest[0] doesn't describe the entire universe of computer programming To describe a universe of things you need quantified statistical evidence about the complexity of the system as a whole. I have offered none. You have also offered none. The reason is no such evidence exists. This argument makes no movement until someone can offer such evidence as no one can make a definitive statement about finance until such statistics and quantifiable measurements are offered. >My claims are just as deep as they need to be to discredit yours. I'm happy to engage in a deeper debate, but you haven't invited us to one yet. Right now this is just noise, particularly considering that you choose to take the stance of someone who thinks they're right even though they admit to being a layman, instead of asking genuine questions driven by intellectual curiosity and the desire to become better informed. Your claims offer nothing. You didn't even respond to all my points. This last paragraph is subtle underhanded insult that comments on me personally rather than the argument at hand. I have said this to absolutely no one else in this thread except you. Due to the underhanded subtle personal insults you have stated against me in your last paragraph... you are not invited to engage in deeper debate with me, you are not invited to respond to me and you are encouraged to leave. I will not respond to you anymore. You will note that I have done this to No one else in this thread except you.