3 ms·
I mean, I think everyone kinda agrees that in general having less code is better. That said, a better analogy would be to imagine a world in which every program
by some_random 3y ago
I mean, I think everyone kinda agrees that in general having less code is better. That said, a better analogy would be to imagine a world in which every program you ever push to prod, every docker container, every EC2 box, all by default were around forever. Making them automatically stop themselves is a way to keep system complexity down and make sure each component is actually, you know, doing something useful.
- comte7092 3y agoI definitely agree that having a simplified legal code is a good thing. What I don’t agree with is the idea that you should just slash away at it with a machete rather than cut away with a scalpel. Making changes to laws is extremely politically fraught and challenging, the real world is messy, and we need laws. For as much flak as people like to give our political system, America has succeeded for having fairly effective and good government, not in spite of it.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThe law is a monolith. It doesn't work like docker containers. It works like a codebase. If anything it works like a series of patches. Imagine a codebase where each commit has an expiration date. If some patches are left to expire, I think we can would be in agreement that at the very least we would have no expectation that patch application would still be successful - leaving us with textual issues. At the very worst, we have no guarantee that the resulting body of law would be consistent, or result in a consistent society. We already have potential loopholes when folks are careful with drafting laws. This is asking for exploits. There is no static analysis for political economy.