3 ms·

If you think this rule is silly because the lawyers ought to know that when an engineer says something that uses a term used colloquially that the lawyers will

If you think this rule is silly because the lawyers ought to know that when an engineer says something that uses a term used colloquially that the lawyers will interpret legally, you aren't allowed to be pedantic when a non-programmer uses a programming term incorrectly either. Like, you can't complain when someone says "growing exponentially" when they mean "growing really fast." It's the same sort of problem, and it is unfortunate that the lawyers can do it. But It happens in every field, really.

FrojoS 6y ago
Good point. But because being arrogant is more fun ... ... first a nitpick: Exponential growth is a mathematics term and it's misused a lot by programmers and HN users (to mean "growing really fast."). ... then a wider sweeping comment: Thanks to COVID-19, the understanding of what exponential growth means has probably increased a lot in the general population. It was quite funny to see people saying things like "Not only are the cases growing exponentially, but the daily increase is also growing exponentially." Well, you can show them wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+e%5Ex or there 10th class math books with all the content they knew they would never need once they left school.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  or there[sic] 10th Another reason to be wary of making corrections to someone else's work: Muphry's Law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law FWIW when commenting on my phone, like I usually do, the autocorrect and I make some really cringeworthy typos and substitutions too.
unishark 6y ago
All of these miscommunications are not a problem ultimately because this is the nature of communication. And lawyers especially know this. The rule is silly because the idea was silly from the start. Some companies got themselves in trouble in the news due to their work emails. Let's pay someone (too much money) to establish some rules. That overpaid person now has to come up with something to justify getting that money. Result: a bunch of silliness and common sense wrapped up in a new training hassle for everyone.
- compiler-guy 6y ago
  Except that people really do lose lawsuits based on the lawyer's misinterpretation of what they say. The classic line from the Google-Oracle suit where a Google engineer says, "We need to license java" cost them millions of dollars in litigation, and some felt it was the smoking gun. Rules that forbid such statements in the future aren't common sense, and make a lot of sense from a legal and financial perspective, annoying though they may be.

FrojoS 6y ago

Good point. But because being arrogant is more fun ... ... first a nitpick: Exponential growth is a mathematics term and it's misused a lot by programmers and HN users (to mean "growing really fast."). ... then a wider sweeping comment: Thanks to COVID-19, the understanding of what exponential growth means has probably increased a lot in the general population. It was quite funny to see people saying things like "Not only are the cases growing exponentially, but the daily increase is also growing exponentially." Well, you can show them wolframalpha.com/input/?i=derivative+of+e%5Ex or there 10th class math books with all the content they knew they would never need once they left school.

nitrogen 6y ago
or there[sic] 10th Another reason to be wary of making corrections to someone else's work: Muphry's Law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law FWIW when commenting on my phone, like I usually do, the autocorrect and I make some really cringeworthy typos and substitutions too.

unishark 6y ago

All of these miscommunications are not a problem ultimately because this is the nature of communication. And lawyers especially know this. The rule is silly because the idea was silly from the start. Some companies got themselves in trouble in the news due to their work emails. Let's pay someone (too much money) to establish some rules. That overpaid person now has to come up with something to justify getting that money. Result: a bunch of silliness and common sense wrapped up in a new training hassle for everyone.

compiler-guy 6y ago
Except that people really do lose lawsuits based on the lawyer's misinterpretation of what they say. The classic line from the Google-Oracle suit where a Google engineer says, "We need to license java" cost them millions of dollars in litigation, and some felt it was the smoking gun. Rules that forbid such statements in the future aren't common sense, and make a lot of sense from a legal and financial perspective, annoying though they may be.