> The second argument is an outright straw man fallacy. Who cares if some laws require interpretation. Just write MAY instead of WILL (like RFC language) to mak

> The second argument is an outright straw man fallacy. Who cares if some laws require interpretation. Just write MAY instead of WILL (like RFC language) to make it clear the judge can decide, then provide statistical information regarding past case law. Nobody is saying "fire all the judges", they're just saying make the law clear. Right now it's not clear, and it's a big problem. But that is not how law works. A judge is generally expected to interpret the law because we cannot expect someone who wrote the law to have predicted all possible things, especially those that did not even exist when the law was written. It's (often) not close to a machine-interpretable spec, but a to visual mockup, to stay in the software area. For example, you may have a law to forbids euthanasia. Does it also extend to assisted suicide? What if the dying person can't physically trigger their own death? What if assisted dying is illegal here, but someone takes the patient to the neighboring country? Also, I hardly believe "read up to date law in your language" is possible, there are entire legal concepts that do not exist in different jurisdictions, or literally the same expression may mean different things ("voir dire" for example). It's good to attempt formalizing things, but I don't think this is a strawman.