3 ms·
It would result in them being shorter
by edgyquant 4y ago
It would result in them being shorter
- malfist 4y agoIs shorter better?
- airstrike 4y agoPerfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
- malfist 3y agoThat doesn't mean shorter is always better. When you take away necessary detail to make things shorter, you wind up with a shorter, less perfect law. For instance, if the law was "No driving over 70mph on I-75", shortening the law to "No driving" isn't an improvement. And even if we maintain the detail and shorten to "No 70+mph driving @ I-75" it doesn't improve things. Concise is good. shortness for shortness sake is not. We don't need to be playing code golf with laws.
- snvzz 4y agoSeen this quote recently, in some book about RISC-V.
- lockhouse 4y agoShorter makes it harder to stuff it full of pork.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- LastTrain 4y agoIt would result in a pointless formal exercise simply designed to make things more difficult without any tangible benefit. Bureaucracy.