3 ms·
I don't think the rule was intentionally or unrealistically vague at all - to the contrary, it was extremely straightforward, and the directions ask you to igno
by radlad 3y ago
I don't think the rule was intentionally or unrealistically vague at all - to the contrary, it was extremely straightforward, and the directions ask you to ignore any preconceived notions, such as laws in your jurisdiction.
What's clear to me from the graph - and the author of this article - is that it's unlikely for any one person to agree with any other one person on how the rule should be enforced - in at least one (or likely many) circumstances, you will probably disagree.
- codeflo 3y agoYou think that any rule in any realistic scenario would be just a single sentence containing an ambiguous word without any known surrounding context, clarifications, examples, or rationale? I've never seen such a thing. This scenario is completely contrived, and still, it kind of worked.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]