Why does the author assume we _want_ the law to be well-defined? Law makers frequently don't actually know what they mean and it would simply take too long (and

Why does the author assume we _want_ the law to be well-defined? Law makers frequently don't actually know what they mean and it would simply take too long (and would be too fraught) to try and actually spell out what they mean. This, however, is not a big--it's a strong advantage! Not only do they avoid the issue of painting themselves into a corner and needing to define what a chair is, but it allows the law to be flexible and react to both extraordinary circumstances as well as slow moving social shifts in the meaning of various terms. It does this by intentionally being vague and allowing issues (which happen rarely compared to non-issues!) to be raised and discussed in their actual, real context. I understand the desire of software people to try and frame everything through a computational model. It's familiar to us, it's our domain after all! But not everything is a problem best solved computationally.