4 ms·
> The new products comply with the rules. Why are you changing the rules? This should be obvious. They're changing the rules because the intention of the rule
by hackerlight 3y ago
> The new products comply with the rules. Why are you changing the rules?
This should be obvious. They're changing the rules because the intention of the rule was being violated via a loophole that wasn't obvious when the rule was first made.
- robertlagrant 3y agoThen why celebrate the people who can't write rules? Their incompetence is at best causing a lot of wasted effort.
- hackerlight 3y agoI'm not celebrating anyone. Although I do have an appreciation for policymakers who can adjust quickly, and I recognize that making rules that aren't exploitable is difficult given you're fighting an uphill battle against incentives and the opponent will therefore attempt to find any small and unpredictable loophole in order to maximize profits. > Their incompetence is at best causing a lot of wasted effort. It's unclear if you're saying the intention of the rule is bad, or merely the way the rule was implemented is bad. If you're talking about the former, you haven't justified that position. If you're talking about the latter, then you are fixating on an irrelevant detail that will be corrected and should step back and look at the bigger picture.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> If you're talking about the latter, then you are fixating on an irrelevant detail that will be corrected and should step back and look at the bigger picture. I don't think triumphalistic declarations of war from legislators who have just written a badly worded law should be celebrated. If that's not big picture enough, either justify why that is, or please refrain from telling me what I should be talking about.