I suppose this is a cliched thought, but the more general problem kind of emblematic of current "smart" features... and their expected successors. OOH, this is

I suppose this is a cliched thought, but the more general problem kind of emblematic of current "smart" features... and their expected successors. OOH, this is a a typically human problem. We have a system. It's partly designed, partly evolved^. It's true enough to serve well in the contexts we use it in on most days. There are bugs in places (like norway, lol) that we didn't think of initially, and haven't encountered often enough to evolve around. In code, we call it bugs. In bureaucracy, we just call it bureaucracy. Agency A needs institution B's document X, in a way that has bugs. Obviously, it's also a typical machine problem. @hitchdev wants to tell pyyaml that Norway exists, and pyyaml doesn't understand. A user wants to enter "MARCH1" as text (or the name of a gene), and excel doesn't understand. Even the most rigid bureaucracy is made of people and has fairly advanced comprehension ability though. If Agency A, institution B or document X are so rigid that "NO" or "MARCH1" break them... it probably means that there's a machine bug behind the human one. Meanwhile... a human reading this blog (even if they don't program) can understand just fine from context and assumptions of intent. IDK... maybe I'm losing my edge, but natural language programming is starting to seem like a possibility to me. ^I feel like we need a new word for these: versioned, maybe?