4 ms·

That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you

by jfoutz 4y ago

That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you have a chance at getting justice. Rules of evidence, Miranda warnings, whatever. I think it's sorta like you have to pass the compiler before you get a chance at a working program. Now, I'm going to strain this analogy, what do you do when there's a bug in the compiler? Me personally I patch the fucking compiler, and then submit a PR. Maybe that PR gets accepted, maybe not. But the problem I have right now is fixed. I would probably not be a good juror.

snovv_crash 4y ago
Patching the compiler means getting a law passed, not bypassing the legal system.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  Once you've patched the compiler, you can re-run your program through it. Likely not possible to do the same for your legal case, and that assumes you can even get a law passed, which is highly doubtful. So, while you can work around the compiler issue, you cannot really remedy the legal system for your case, which could be deleterious.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    Absolutely, it's more of an 'eventually consistent' system.
- jfoutz 4y ago
  Ah, yeah. It's an analogy, and argument by analogy always fails, because the two things are different, and you can't really hide those differences. I'd say getting your PR accepted is like passing the law. Locally hacking up the compiler to get this one stupid executable to work is like jury nullification. Argument by analogy sucks, but hopefully this gets the spirit of what I'm trying to say across. I'm going to drop that analogy now. Back to the original quote, everybody has to follow the laws. If we don't follow the laws, there is no hope for justice. Jurys rarely if ever have to explain what they were thinking, and the best a judge can do is declare a mistrial and start over. Sometimes the law is fucked up, or it shouldn't be applied in a specific circumstance. And a jury can do that. This is of course ripe for abuse, if my buddy is on the jury of my trial, maybe I don't get convicted - but there are a bunch of laws around jury selection so hopefully that doesn't happen to often.
namelessoracle 4y ago
Taking this analogy further. Jury nullification is like manually manipulating the database after the program keeps crashing out to make sure the customer gets what they need right now.
salawat 4y ago
Your patching the compiler is basically jury nullification. Doing that though, creates a huge mess in terms of interpreting the overall effect on precedent. Should jury nullification occur, it is almost certain that in the long run, there will end up being legislative clarification or revisiting of what led to it. Nullification, however, is the last bulwark against an overzealous State, and a powerful signal of no confidence. It's so destructive to the credibility of the system, it is one of the few things I can honestly say is only spoken of in hushed contexts, and with dread by many because of the unpleasant nature of the circumstances that warrant the existence of such a safeguard. No one wants to believe a government could get so out of hand it has to get reined in in such a way. It can though. That's why it's important.

by jfoutz 4y ago

snovv_crash 4y ago

Patching the compiler means getting a law passed, not bypassing the legal system.

andsoitis 4y ago
Once you've patched the compiler, you can re-run your program through it. Likely not possible to do the same for your legal case, and that assumes you can even get a law passed, which is highly doubtful. So, while you can work around the compiler issue, you cannot really remedy the legal system for your case, which could be deleterious.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Absolutely, it's more of an 'eventually consistent' system.
jfoutz 4y ago
Ah, yeah. It's an analogy, and argument by analogy always fails, because the two things are different, and you can't really hide those differences. I'd say getting your PR accepted is like passing the law. Locally hacking up the compiler to get this one stupid executable to work is like jury nullification. Argument by analogy sucks, but hopefully this gets the spirit of what I'm trying to say across. I'm going to drop that analogy now. Back to the original quote, everybody has to follow the laws. If we don't follow the laws, there is no hope for justice. Jurys rarely if ever have to explain what they were thinking, and the best a judge can do is declare a mistrial and start over. Sometimes the law is fucked up, or it shouldn't be applied in a specific circumstance. And a jury can do that. This is of course ripe for abuse, if my buddy is on the jury of my trial, maybe I don't get convicted - but there are a bunch of laws around jury selection so hopefully that doesn't happen to often.

namelessoracle 4y ago

Taking this analogy further. Jury nullification is like manually manipulating the database after the program keeps crashing out to make sure the customer gets what they need right now.

salawat 4y ago

Your patching the compiler is basically jury nullification. Doing that though, creates a huge mess in terms of interpreting the overall effect on precedent. Should jury nullification occur, it is almost certain that in the long run, there will end up being legislative clarification or revisiting of what led to it. Nullification, however, is the last bulwark against an overzealous State, and a powerful signal of no confidence. It's so destructive to the credibility of the system, it is one of the few things I can honestly say is only spoken of in hushed contexts, and with dread by many because of the unpleasant nature of the circumstances that warrant the existence of such a safeguard. No one wants to believe a government could get so out of hand it has to get reined in in such a way. It can though. That's why it's important.