5 ms·

As the article reports, the ruling actually states that the amount of time must be reasonable. Any gross or blatant violation would be picked up by any lawyer o

As the article reports, the ruling actually states that the amount of time must be reasonable. Any gross or blatant violation would be picked up by any lawyer or judge.

OutOfHere 2y ago
Let's invent a new programming language that tells its users that the amount of time for which they hold memory should be "reasonable", without getting into specifics. This means the language can reclaim memory whenever it deems a violation has occurred. How well do you think would that work for the program? Not very well.
- lolinder 2y ago
  As much as programmers like to draw analogies between law and code, they don't really work the same way at all.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    > they don't really work the same way Why not? It would seem that you're just used to a state of exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice. Sometimes it helps to see things from an outsider's perspective.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      I'm not commenting on the way things should be, I'm commenting on the way things are. And if you're saying that this ruling is bad because it doesn't work well in an idealized model of the law as you think it should be... that's an interesting observation, but you can hardly fault the judge for crafting a ruling that works in the context of the actual legal system.
    - SllX 2y ago
      Because laws are executed by people, not computers.
    - Almondsetat 2y ago
      Why yes?
  - tocs3 2y ago
    There are times that parts of a law should be vague to allow those evolved to make intelligent decisions. They should be specific enough to come to a resolution quickly if needed.
    - OutOfHere 2y ago
      This opens the door to routine injustices whereby those who can afford expensive attorneys get a sweet deal, and everyone else gets stabbed in the name of justice.
      - SoftTalker 2y ago
        Courts tend to follow precident, indeed precident is nearly the same as law. It's not really the case that an expensive attorney can argue his way around the well-established interpretations of the meaning of the constitution and other laws. Maybe, in the case of something novel, or for a question that has never come up before. It's not at all routine.
      - autoexec 2y ago
        that sounds like what we have right now.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Yes, the constitution itself only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and only states that "probable cause" is required for a warrant. These terms are undefined, and left to the courts to interpret.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      The definitions are well defined in theory. How they get applied to specific cases and how they have been perverted over time is the real problem. Take warrants and probable cause. It's supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime has been committed. The quality of many warrants today seem to completely miss this to the point that many of the descriptions fail to even claim that the elements of the offense have been satisfied. Then we have such a lazy system that warrants foe summary offenses don't even have to be for the correct crime - all that needs to be claimed is that any crime has been committed. That's how it goes when the system is too lazy to give each issue the correct level of attention to protect your basic rights.
- RiverCrochet 2y ago
  Isn't that what garbage collection essentially is?
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Garbage collection doesn't impose a subjective reasonable vs unreasonable time limit for holding memory. It checks if the memory is still in use or not. Garbage collection is never subjective; it is entirely objective and without ambiguity or bias with regard to the guarantees it offers.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Earlier you wrote "Let's invent a new programming language that tells its users that the amount of time for which they hold memory should be "reasonable", without getting into specifics." This is essentially what Python-the-language does. It does not require reference counting, or mark-sweep, or any garbage collection at all. The language specification says at https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#objects-values-and-types https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#objects-v... : "Objects are never explicitly destroyed; however, when they become unreachable they may be garbage-collected. An implementation is allowed to postpone garbage collection or omit it altogether — it is a matter of implementation quality how garbage collection is implemented, as long as no objects are collected that are still reachable." That subjective language specification is quite different than its objective implementation in a Python implementation, which appear to be what you refer to now.
    - nox101 2y ago
      I'm not sure of your definition of objective here. If you mean a specific implementation and exact version of a specific language does one objective thing that might be true. But, different implementations of the same language and different versions of those implementations can all do different things. GC rarely says exactly when something will be collected. Only that it will eventually. Example: https://jsfiddle.net/8cej4tpk/2/ https://jsfiddle.net/8cej4tpk/2/ Firefox GCs after about 8 seconds, Safari GCs immmediately, Chrome never (probably not until there's pressure). And, you'll find different behavior if you go check different versions of those browsers.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  I know you think you're being facetious, but you've just described how modern operating systems work. They give programs a reasonable amount of memory, without getting into specifics about the limits. And they reclaim memory as necessary based on the demands of the OS and other programs. See, for example, browser memory usage vs video game usage. It turns out that in practice "reasonable" works quite well as long as you are reasonable about it.
- ffgjgf1 2y ago
  Presumably much better than a language which would free all memory after 46 minutes in all cases regardless if that makes sense in the given context. Also not sure why people like coming with analogies so much, they very rarely are useful or make anything clearer.
  - xelamonster 2y ago
    I dunno, I think it's generally quite useful to identify relations between similar concepts. Not always easy to find one that fits perfectly but usually it just needs a bit of a tweak. Like in this case, the situation you describe is exactly what a garbage collected language does, the key is that they let you mark what memory is still in use with a reference. Similarly in this case, there should be an explicitly defined time with a rule that if police want to hold something longer, they need to actively justify why and what the expected timeline is for the return without the owner needing to take them to court over it. Not perfect, but neither is garbage collection, and to me sounds much improved from what we've got.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      I’m still not sure if GC is the police (i.e. returning the money/memory at an arbitrary undefined point in the future) or me trying to take it back. The topic at hand is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, not sure what’s the point of trying to explain it using significantly more complex concepts besides making it more confusing and harder to understand for no reason.. (I mean I find it hard to believe that any person who understands how GC works would find the analogy in anyway useful). > Not always easy to find one that fits perfectly but usually it just needs a bit of a tweak. On a very superficial level sure. But then that mechanism starts coming apart at the seems if you start talking about the details.

As the article reports, the ruling actually states that the amount of time must be reasonable. Any gross or blatant violation would be picked up by any lawyer or judge.

OutOfHere 2y ago

Let's invent a new programming language that tells its users that the amount of time for which they hold memory should be "reasonable", without getting into specifics. This means the language can reclaim memory whenever it deems a violation has occurred. How well do you think would that work for the program? Not very well.

lolinder 2y ago
As much as programmers like to draw analogies between law and code, they don't really work the same way at all.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  > they don't really work the same way Why not? It would seem that you're just used to a state of exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice. Sometimes it helps to see things from an outsider's perspective.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    I'm not commenting on the way things should be, I'm commenting on the way things are. And if you're saying that this ruling is bad because it doesn't work well in an idealized model of the law as you think it should be... that's an interesting observation, but you can hardly fault the judge for crafting a ruling that works in the context of the actual legal system.
  - SllX 2y ago
    Because laws are executed by people, not computers.
  - Almondsetat 2y ago
    Why yes?
- tocs3 2y ago
  There are times that parts of a law should be vague to allow those evolved to make intelligent decisions. They should be specific enough to come to a resolution quickly if needed.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    This opens the door to routine injustices whereby those who can afford expensive attorneys get a sweet deal, and everyone else gets stabbed in the name of justice.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Courts tend to follow precident, indeed precident is nearly the same as law. It's not really the case that an expensive attorney can argue his way around the well-established interpretations of the meaning of the constitution and other laws. Maybe, in the case of something novel, or for a question that has never come up before. It's not at all routine.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      that sounds like what we have right now.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Yes, the constitution itself only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and only states that "probable cause" is required for a warrant. These terms are undefined, and left to the courts to interpret.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    The definitions are well defined in theory. How they get applied to specific cases and how they have been perverted over time is the real problem. Take warrants and probable cause. It's supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime has been committed. The quality of many warrants today seem to completely miss this to the point that many of the descriptions fail to even claim that the elements of the offense have been satisfied. Then we have such a lazy system that warrants foe summary offenses don't even have to be for the correct crime - all that needs to be claimed is that any crime has been committed. That's how it goes when the system is too lazy to give each issue the correct level of attention to protect your basic rights.
RiverCrochet 2y ago
Isn't that what garbage collection essentially is?
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Garbage collection doesn't impose a subjective reasonable vs unreasonable time limit for holding memory. It checks if the memory is still in use or not. Garbage collection is never subjective; it is entirely objective and without ambiguity or bias with regard to the guarantees it offers.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Earlier you wrote "Let's invent a new programming language that tells its users that the amount of time for which they hold memory should be "reasonable", without getting into specifics." This is essentially what Python-the-language does. It does not require reference counting, or mark-sweep, or any garbage collection at all. The language specification says at https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#objects-values-and-types https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#objects-v... : "Objects are never explicitly destroyed; however, when they become unreachable they may be garbage-collected. An implementation is allowed to postpone garbage collection or omit it altogether — it is a matter of implementation quality how garbage collection is implemented, as long as no objects are collected that are still reachable." That subjective language specification is quite different than its objective implementation in a Python implementation, which appear to be what you refer to now.
  - nox101 2y ago
    I'm not sure of your definition of objective here. If you mean a specific implementation and exact version of a specific language does one objective thing that might be true. But, different implementations of the same language and different versions of those implementations can all do different things. GC rarely says exactly when something will be collected. Only that it will eventually. Example: https://jsfiddle.net/8cej4tpk/2/ https://jsfiddle.net/8cej4tpk/2/ Firefox GCs after about 8 seconds, Safari GCs immmediately, Chrome never (probably not until there's pressure). And, you'll find different behavior if you go check different versions of those browsers.
gamblor956 2y ago
I know you think you're being facetious, but you've just described how modern operating systems work. They give programs a reasonable amount of memory, without getting into specifics about the limits. And they reclaim memory as necessary based on the demands of the OS and other programs. See, for example, browser memory usage vs video game usage. It turns out that in practice "reasonable" works quite well as long as you are reasonable about it.
ffgjgf1 2y ago
Presumably much better than a language which would free all memory after 46 minutes in all cases regardless if that makes sense in the given context. Also not sure why people like coming with analogies so much, they very rarely are useful or make anything clearer.
- xelamonster 2y ago
  I dunno, I think it's generally quite useful to identify relations between similar concepts. Not always easy to find one that fits perfectly but usually it just needs a bit of a tweak. Like in this case, the situation you describe is exactly what a garbage collected language does, the key is that they let you mark what memory is still in use with a reference. Similarly in this case, there should be an explicitly defined time with a rule that if police want to hold something longer, they need to actively justify why and what the expected timeline is for the return without the owner needing to take them to court over it. Not perfect, but neither is garbage collection, and to me sounds much improved from what we've got.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    I’m still not sure if GC is the police (i.e. returning the money/memory at an arbitrary undefined point in the future) or me trying to take it back. The topic at hand is pretty straightforward and easy to understand, not sure what’s the point of trying to explain it using significantly more complex concepts besides making it more confusing and harder to understand for no reason.. (I mean I find it hard to believe that any person who understands how GC works would find the analogy in anyway useful). > Not always easy to find one that fits perfectly but usually it just needs a bit of a tweak. On a very superficial level sure. But then that mechanism starts coming apart at the seems if you start talking about the details.