> 3. Rules in life are just constructs that we as humans have created. Corollary to this is that human rules aren't like programming rules and that the words t

> 3. Rules in life are just constructs that we as humans have created. Corollary to this is that human rules aren't like programming rules and that the words that make up the rules get interpreted by a human. One thing that this means is that you can't "hack" a human rule by picking the semantic meaning of a word which works best for you. You have to actually convince the arbiter of that rule that they agree with your meaning. If they don't, and they have a hundred years of legal ruling behind them that they've read and you haven't, then you're screwed. And good human rules usually do have exceptions to them ("yelling fire in a crowded theater" being the most well understood). This is also why "the exception that proves the rule" is not a stupid saying. And this is a feature and not a bug. The worst rules we generate are usually the ones that require the human arbiter to be rigid and mechanical. That tends to produce injustices like "three strikes you're out" and "mandatory minimum sentencing" (or any attempt to make the handball rule in soccer/football be objective and just winds up making it worse).