7 ms·

Great point. The difficult thing, on this forum, is it is weighted towards younger and very accomplished computer scientists. Sometimes the impulse, when seeing

Great point. The difficult thing, on this forum, is it is weighted towards younger and very accomplished computer scientists. Sometimes the impulse, when seeing complexity that's hard to understand (medicine, regulation, law), is to be frustrated and dismiss it. Law is amazing and much older than programming, and one of the underrated human inventions. The fact we aren't constantly killing each other over small disputes is amazing when you really consider it.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Many small disputes start as somebody threatening somebody else over like 1¢. Yeah like 1¢, I've gone through that, I've taken somebody to court after escalating the fuck out of a 1¢ cost. Small claims, went alone, the counterparty didn't go to negotiations, I spoke my piece, showed my evidence, corrected their translator because I spoke both languages perfectly, didn't interrupt the judge, suppressed laughter which the transcriber saw and smiled, but that's not harmful...and got everything I asked for, because I asked for exactly what I deserved. Compound interest too, 10% a year, so I can sell that debt to collections or hound that old landlady down myself, which would be a learning experience. Context, she cheated me out of the deposit and now owes me triple plus court costs plus another $45 item she cheated me out of, so like...payback is a bitch. Biggest problem with small claims court, because there is a problem with it...don't sell popcorn. That is a problem, apart from that problem it's great but that is a problem and that means small claims has a problem...they should sell popcorn. And also the amounts are too small, small claims should go up to $50000, courts are the last to adjust for inflation, so it sucks. And the judges get cheated out of wages can't even afford to protect themselves, the jury gets the minimum wage like what the fuck, that's disgusting, they should always get quadruple the minimum wage because they're participating in civil matters which is a legitimate priviledge of a law-abiding citizen. But in court? You can win.
rgifford 4y ago
> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. To be plain, I don't know of any ICs their age able to keep up. They move up or age out. The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. We programmers have all sorts of tooling to navigate code bases larger than we can readily keep in our heads. That tooling regularly fails us. The best programmers I've worked with regularly hit compiler errors. This all happens in the sterile environment of code. Why should I believe that judges, who can't even agree on whether to interpret the constitution in a modern lens or hold to its writers original intentions, are less susceptible to irrationality or bias or plain incompetence with far less tooling? A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. For all you programmers out there, read a handful of legal documents. As far as complex logical reasoning goes, it comes off like a kid building a treehouse compared to code for even simple web apps. The legal profession needs to recognize its limitations and catch up with the times. Here are some ideas: - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. - Term limits for everyone, everywhere. - In certain cases, law should embrace statistics. Certain cases aren't suited for proposition-like rule based reasoning. Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society.
- billyhoffman 4y ago
  I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term And to ensure they aren’t beholden to the guy promising them their next job. Compromise could be you become a nonvoting member of the Court after a certain age. You can ask questions at trial, deliberate with other members, et cetera. But you don’t sign opinions or dissents.
  - rgifford 4y ago
    > However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard. Keep in mind in all of human history only about 1/4 of violent revolutions are successful, many that "succeeded" left all parties involved much worse off. America, especially in its inception, was an incredible anomaly that far too many paint as something more in the name of American exceptionalism. EDIT: Look, our legislature is a complete and abject failure. It's completely gridlocked, arguably by the design of private interests. If it were working to reflect popular interest, I imagine American law and government would look very different. I don't think any of what I'm suggesting here would be even slightly controversial to be quite honest.
    - d110af5ccf 4y ago
      > a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38 That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us. > I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.

daniel-cussen 4y ago

Many small disputes start as somebody threatening somebody else over like 1¢. Yeah like 1¢, I've gone through that, I've taken somebody to court after escalating the fuck out of a 1¢ cost. Small claims, went alone, the counterparty didn't go to negotiations, I spoke my piece, showed my evidence, corrected their translator because I spoke both languages perfectly, didn't interrupt the judge, suppressed laughter which the transcriber saw and smiled, but that's not harmful...and got everything I asked for, because I asked for exactly what I deserved. Compound interest too, 10% a year, so I can sell that debt to collections or hound that old landlady down myself, which would be a learning experience. Context, she cheated me out of the deposit and now owes me triple plus court costs plus another $45 item she cheated me out of, so like...payback is a bitch. Biggest problem with small claims court, because there is a problem with it...don't sell popcorn. That is a problem, apart from that problem it's great but that is a problem and that means small claims has a problem...they should sell popcorn. And also the amounts are too small, small claims should go up to $50000, courts are the last to adjust for inflation, so it sucks. And the judges get cheated out of wages can't even afford to protect themselves, the jury gets the minimum wage like what the fuck, that's disgusting, they should always get quadruple the minimum wage because they're participating in civil matters which is a legitimate priviledge of a law-abiding citizen. But in court? You can win.

rgifford 4y ago

> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. To be plain, I don't know of any ICs their age able to keep up. They move up or age out. The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. We programmers have all sorts of tooling to navigate code bases larger than we can readily keep in our heads. That tooling regularly fails us. The best programmers I've worked with regularly hit compiler errors. This all happens in the sterile environment of code. Why should I believe that judges, who can't even agree on whether to interpret the constitution in a modern lens or hold to its writers original intentions, are less susceptible to irrationality or bias or plain incompetence with far less tooling? A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. For all you programmers out there, read a handful of legal documents. As far as complex logical reasoning goes, it comes off like a kid building a treehouse compared to code for even simple web apps. The legal profession needs to recognize its limitations and catch up with the times. Here are some ideas: - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. - Term limits for everyone, everywhere. - In certain cases, law should embrace statistics. Certain cases aren't suited for proposition-like rule based reasoning. Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society.

billyhoffman 4y ago
I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term And to ensure they aren’t beholden to the guy promising them their next job. Compromise could be you become a nonvoting member of the Court after a certain age. You can ask questions at trial, deliberate with other members, et cetera. But you don’t sign opinions or dissents.
- rgifford 4y ago
  > However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature... It was a feature in a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38. I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. Different time, completely different context. Economics, psychology, and almost all of STEM didn't even exist then. They did not know what they were doing. They got lucky in almost every regard. Keep in mind in all of human history only about 1/4 of violent revolutions are successful, many that "succeeded" left all parties involved much worse off. America, especially in its inception, was an incredible anomaly that far too many paint as something more in the name of American exceptionalism. EDIT: Look, our legislature is a complete and abject failure. It's completely gridlocked, arguably by the design of private interests. If it were working to reflect popular interest, I imagine American law and government would look very different. I don't think any of what I'm suggesting here would be even slightly controversial to be quite honest.
  - d110af5ccf 4y ago
    > a time when white men lived, on average, to the ripe old age of 38 That is a meaningless figure. Those that survived to adulthood had similar lifespans to us. > I'm tired of treating anything the founding fathers came up with as sacred. This is a common refrain from people who want to change things as they see fit against the wishes of those who disagree with them. If there were broad consensus to change the law as written then presumably the legislature would vote to do so. You are attacking the credibility of the institution rather than admit that something like half of the country doesn't share your views.