3 ms·

> We already continuously refine our laws to cover edge cases. Exactly the author's point. There's no set of rules that clear every possibility. You just keep

by _xivi 3y ago

> We already continuously refine our laws to cover edge cases. Exactly the author's point. There's no set of rules that clear every possibility. You just keep adapting, and the other side will keep involving. > the author could have stipulated motor vehicles and a 400 ft FAA air ceiling boundary to the park Then there'd been new 'trick' questions with new edge cases where people are split too. I think you might have misunderstood the expierement, did you get to the end where the author explain his intention? This set of questions aren't a challenge, just a game to illustrate a point.

dahart 3y ago
> did you get to the end Yes, I did. The end is precisely the annoying part, and is making the same ‘it’s hopeless’ argument as the blog post here. The author said “Some people think there could be simple rules […] I want to problematize this.”, and “ pinning down a definition is usually impossible”, and “You might think you can add enough epicycles to your rules to avoid this problem”. He concedes that one can reduce the problem in the middle of paragraph 5 after stating over and over that the problem is insurmountable. I think some folks are misunderstanding my comment; I’m aware that moderation and laws are hard, and that edge cases are fractal whack-a-mole. I’m pushing back on the summary take-away message, on the framing. It’s a subtlety, but I think an important one. I don’t think the right message to send as the top and foremost idea is that it’s impossible, and making it any better is a complete and total slog that introduces exponential problems. I think a better message is that words can be interpreted in many ways, so care is required, and with effort it’s possible to make significant improvements. And I think the ‘no vehicles’ in the park could have easily demonstrated that just a few words would have fixed the bulk of the issue, but the author chose not to in order to serve the framing he intended.
Dylan16807 3y ago
> Then there'd been new 'trick' questions with new edge cases where people are split too. Yeah, and they'd be orders of magnitude less important. Agreement across a selection of events, weighted by likelihood of actually happening, would skyrocket. The amount of effort it takes to improve agreement by a certain amount is very relevant to the point being made.

by _xivi 3y ago

dahart 3y ago

> did you get to the end Yes, I did. The end is precisely the annoying part, and is making the same ‘it’s hopeless’ argument as the blog post here. The author said “Some people think there could be simple rules […] I want to problematize this.”, and “ pinning down a definition is usually impossible”, and “You might think you can add enough epicycles to your rules to avoid this problem”. He concedes that one can reduce the problem in the middle of paragraph 5 after stating over and over that the problem is insurmountable. I think some folks are misunderstanding my comment; I’m aware that moderation and laws are hard, and that edge cases are fractal whack-a-mole. I’m pushing back on the summary take-away message, on the framing. It’s a subtlety, but I think an important one. I don’t think the right message to send as the top and foremost idea is that it’s impossible, and making it any better is a complete and total slog that introduces exponential problems. I think a better message is that words can be interpreted in many ways, so care is required, and with effort it’s possible to make significant improvements. And I think the ‘no vehicles’ in the park could have easily demonstrated that just a few words would have fixed the bulk of the issue, but the author chose not to in order to serve the framing he intended.

Dylan16807 3y ago

> Then there'd been new 'trick' questions with new edge cases where people are split too. Yeah, and they'd be orders of magnitude less important. Agreement across a selection of events, weighted by likelihood of actually happening, would skyrocket. The amount of effort it takes to improve agreement by a certain amount is very relevant to the point being made.