3 ms·

> in general, I'm all for removing subjectivity I usually appreciate objectivity, but in human processes it rarely works. There are always edge cases. Write do

> in general, I'm all for removing subjectivity I usually appreciate objectivity, but in human processes it rarely works. There are always edge cases. Write down all the rules for number plates and someone will find a way to write an offensive one, or language will change and the policy won't have caught up. You need human subjectivity in the loop as a check. This is where "smart" contracts fell down, the pitch was having truly objective and automated contracts, which were supposed to be better than legal contracts because of those properties. But what we actually got was contracts where finding a loophole meant you could screw over the other party and be contractually guaranteed to get away with it. The real benefit of a legal contract is being able to go to court and litigate it and theoretically come out with a fair result. That's not always possible, but it is much more likely than with "smart" contracts.

behnamoh 1y ago
> Write down all the rules for number plates and someone will find a way to write an offensive one, or language will change and the policy won't have caught up. You need human subjectivity in the loop as a check. That's not what I meant with subjectivity. I want objective rules, like "license place should be 6 alphanumeric letters". as soon as you say "it shouldn't be offensive to the average citizen", you're in the subjectivity realm.
- danpalmer 1y ago
  Ok, but you'd agree that we shouldn't allow, say, an offensive word for a specific race to be used right? Because that would be actively harmful to many people. So we make a rule saying "you can't use word X". So someone submits a plate that is X but... with a number replacing a letter. It's not against the rules, but it's still actively harmful because a human subjectively reads it as the banned word. So you expand the rule, but then language changes, etc etc. Surely you need to have a subjective judgement process because the interpretation/harm is subjective? I'll grant you that finding the right balance here, or where the line is, is a hard problem. This list to me however shows that it can be achieved in a reasonable way. Alternatively if you think that people should be allowed to use widely recognised, highly derogatory words for other people as number plates, that rules like being 6 characters is strictly sufficient, then I think we disagree too much to resolve.

behnamoh 1y ago

> Write down all the rules for number plates and someone will find a way to write an offensive one, or language will change and the policy won't have caught up. You need human subjectivity in the loop as a check. That's not what I meant with subjectivity. I want objective rules, like "license place should be 6 alphanumeric letters". as soon as you say "it shouldn't be offensive to the average citizen", you're in the subjectivity realm.

danpalmer 1y ago
Ok, but you'd agree that we shouldn't allow, say, an offensive word for a specific race to be used right? Because that would be actively harmful to many people. So we make a rule saying "you can't use word X". So someone submits a plate that is X but... with a number replacing a letter. It's not against the rules, but it's still actively harmful because a human subjectively reads it as the banned word. So you expand the rule, but then language changes, etc etc. Surely you need to have a subjective judgement process because the interpretation/harm is subjective? I'll grant you that finding the right balance here, or where the line is, is a hard problem. This list to me however shows that it can be achieved in a reasonable way. Alternatively if you think that people should be allowed to use widely recognised, highly derogatory words for other people as number plates, that rules like being 6 characters is strictly sufficient, then I think we disagree too much to resolve.