3 ms·
IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract.
by s1artibartfast 2y ago
IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract.
>What, the piece of paper that I skimmed and signed and stuck in a drawer is the deal, and not the computer screen that I look at every day? Seems implausible. The contract is just a piece of paper; the computer is real life.
>The stock administration platform is real life; the contract is just a contract.
Maybe there are 2 levels are sarcasm and he is actually saying the paper contract drives the ruling (which it did), but I dont see it.
- jmholla 2y ago> IMO, Matt does a pretty bad job of illustrating that point. It seems like he is construing this ruling as a an example of the computer superseding the contract. Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It wasn't the computer. It was execution of the contract and which side of the contract performed poorly in that execution. It's not as reductive as that's what the computer said.