4 ms·
the irony with this (as with all such laws) is that all you have to do is ask a mathematician to give you a function that is maximally un-manipulatable in this
by ledauphin 3y ago
the irony with this (as with all such laws) is that all you have to do is ask a mathematician to give you a function that is maximally un-manipulatable in this way, and the law would immediately be much harder to game.
but instead we insist on writing all our laws as though the only tools available to us are +-÷×, and people who recall middle school math can find ways to game them.
- lazide 3y agoThis has nothing to do with fixing the stated problem, and everything to do with pretending to fix the problem while getting paid. If you assume that may be true, it makes a lot more sense IMO.
- ledauphin 3y agothis is a very fair point which sadly just redoubles my disappointment with the vast majority of the newer laws I hear about.
- lazide 3y agoThe real mind fuck for me was figuring out that this has been true for the vast majority of laws since we ran out of obvious stuff that needing banning like murder. It would cause some shifts, the obvious abusive cases would likely move on to something more subtle (if they could pivot in time) or get snuffed. But it wouldn’t be long before another hole would be found, and it would be even more convoluted and hard to detect next time.