5 ms·

There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to p

There is a joke I love that illustrates the concept: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, he didn't mean to pull the trigger, and that son-of-a-bitch had it coming!"

rob_c 5y ago
Classic, been a while since id read that one :)
Victerius 5y ago
What would that be in programmer speak? The intern had no write access to the production database, he didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it coming?
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  "Ladies and gentlemen of the management, I was nowhere near the git repo on the day in question, I didn't mean to make that commit, and the customers suck anyways so they deserved that data loss bug."
- gpm 5y ago
  The program didn't have write access to the log file, it didn't write to the log file, and who cares if there's a bit of junk at the end of the log files anyways? https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/ https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/
- raldi 5y ago
  void *p = NULL; int i = *p / 0;
- JTbane 5y ago
  I can't reproduce it; you're using it wrong; it's a feature, not a bug.
- yongjik 5y ago
  The line must be useful for something; you can't prove it actually does anything; who cares, you can always just restart the server! (...when presented with a line in the script that randomly hangs the server.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
CrazyStat 5y ago
There's an old Russian joke about it as well, roughly "That was a long time ago and didn't happen anyway."
- bjourne 5y ago
  And the corollary: "Even if it didn't happen, it's still horrible!"
danuker 5y ago
These three can in fact be all true at once, so the arguments are consistent, unlike kettle logic. "Didn't mean to pull the trigger" does not imply the defendant could pull the trigger.
- ambrozk 5y ago
  The three incompatible scenarios are: 1. The accused was nowhere near the scene of the murder 2. The accused was at the scene of the murder, and in fact committed the murder, but on accident 3. The accused committed the murder on purpose, because the victim had it coming.
  - danuker 5y ago
    I got the joke. But it is arguable whether the wording implies "the accused was at the scene of the murder" or "the accused committed the murder on purpose".
cato_the_elder 5y ago
And there's the notorious "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is". I think the honest version of this kind of argument is helpful in some cases though. Not everybody agrees on the same set of the facts, and sometimes the conclusion one is arguing for is true regardless.
_dain_ 5y ago
See also: "It Was A Long Time Ago And It Never Happened Anyway" https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192377/it-was-long-time-ago-and-it-never-happened-anyway https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192377/it-was-long-ti...
throwawaycities 5y ago
These kinds of jokes are often used to make mock lawyers and even the legal profession. But under US criminal the defense doesn’t have to do anything, the entire burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) a criminal act happened, 2) the defendant committed the act and 3) defendant had intent to commit the crime. Naturally opening/closing arguments actually sound very much like your joke…the government can’t prove a crime happened; if they can they can’t prove my client committed the act; and if they can they can’t prove my client intended to commit the act. It sounds funny, but logically it makes a lot of sense to say things like we don’t need to a get to the question of if the defendant committed the crime because the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime was committed (e.g. no body in a murder case).
ffhhj 5y ago
Shouldn't kettle logic be considered a paradox of Logic? Those options are mutually exclusive only if there are no hidden variables. We could make them theories and assign probabilities: There is X probability the client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, and Y probability he didn't mean to pull the trigger That way these are not exclusive and the contradiction disappears. Now suppose the client is convicted because X is too high, years later a hidden variable is revealed that reduces the probability to zero. He is released from jail, but another hidden variable appears that increases Y to 100%. There should also be a probability for unknown unknowns, when a fair coin falls sideways.
trhway 5y ago
it is actually illustrates QM superposition. Also reminds a situation when you're troubleshooting some complicated issue while not having yet enough information - you kind of running several, frequently mutually incompatible, scenarios in your head at the same time.
tshaddox 5y ago
The funny thing is, if you spend too much time arguing with anonymous people on the Internet, you will routinely run into arguments that are both invalid and have false premises.

rob_c 5y ago

Classic, been a while since id read that one :)

Victerius 5y ago

What would that be in programmer speak? The intern had no write access to the production database, he didn't mean to do the commit, and our network engineers had it coming?

Jtsummers 5y ago
"Ladies and gentlemen of the management, I was nowhere near the git repo on the day in question, I didn't mean to make that commit, and the customers suck anyways so they deserved that data loss bug."
gpm 5y ago
The program didn't have write access to the log file, it didn't write to the log file, and who cares if there's a bit of junk at the end of the log files anyways? https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/ https://dirtypipe.cm4all.com/
raldi 5y ago
void *p = NULL; int i = *p / 0;
JTbane 5y ago
I can't reproduce it; you're using it wrong; it's a feature, not a bug.
yongjik 5y ago
The line must be useful for something; you can't prove it actually does anything; who cares, you can always just restart the server! (...when presented with a line in the script that randomly hangs the server.)

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

CrazyStat 5y ago

There's an old Russian joke about it as well, roughly "That was a long time ago and didn't happen anyway."

bjourne 5y ago
And the corollary: "Even if it didn't happen, it's still horrible!"

danuker 5y ago

These three can in fact be all true at once, so the arguments are consistent, unlike kettle logic. "Didn't mean to pull the trigger" does not imply the defendant could pull the trigger.

ambrozk 5y ago
The three incompatible scenarios are: 1. The accused was nowhere near the scene of the murder 2. The accused was at the scene of the murder, and in fact committed the murder, but on accident 3. The accused committed the murder on purpose, because the victim had it coming.
- danuker 5y ago
  I got the joke. But it is arguable whether the wording implies "the accused was at the scene of the murder" or "the accused committed the murder on purpose".

cato_the_elder 5y ago

And there's the notorious "That’s Not Happening and It’s Good That It Is". I think the honest version of this kind of argument is helpful in some cases though. Not everybody agrees on the same set of the facts, and sometimes the conclusion one is arguing for is true regardless.

_dain_ 5y ago

See also: "It Was A Long Time Ago And It Never Happened Anyway" https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192377/it-was-long-time-ago-and-it-never-happened-anyway https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300192377/it-was-long-ti...

throwawaycities 5y ago

These kinds of jokes are often used to make mock lawyers and even the legal profession. But under US criminal the defense doesn’t have to do anything, the entire burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) a criminal act happened, 2) the defendant committed the act and 3) defendant had intent to commit the crime. Naturally opening/closing arguments actually sound very much like your joke…the government can’t prove a crime happened; if they can they can’t prove my client committed the act; and if they can they can’t prove my client intended to commit the act. It sounds funny, but logically it makes a lot of sense to say things like we don’t need to a get to the question of if the defendant committed the crime because the government can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt a crime was committed (e.g. no body in a murder case).

ffhhj 5y ago

Shouldn't kettle logic be considered a paradox of Logic? Those options are mutually exclusive only if there are no hidden variables. We could make them theories and assign probabilities: There is X probability the client was nowhere near the scene of the murder, and Y probability he didn't mean to pull the trigger That way these are not exclusive and the contradiction disappears. Now suppose the client is convicted because X is too high, years later a hidden variable is revealed that reduces the probability to zero. He is released from jail, but another hidden variable appears that increases Y to 100%. There should also be a probability for unknown unknowns, when a fair coin falls sideways.

trhway 5y ago

it is actually illustrates QM superposition. Also reminds a situation when you're troubleshooting some complicated issue while not having yet enough information - you kind of running several, frequently mutually incompatible, scenarios in your head at the same time.

tshaddox 5y ago

The funny thing is, if you spend too much time arguing with anonymous people on the Internet, you will routinely run into arguments that are both invalid and have false premises.