- Person 1 makes an observation that they assert is true
- Person 2 refers to this observation as “Person 1’s Law” for convenience when discussing the observation and whether or not it is true.
There’s nothing wrong or “graceless” with Person 1 then using the term themselves, even for the purpose of arguing in favor of their assertion (which is what this web page is doing).
This is a common pattern in history:
- Person 1 makes an observation that they assert is true
- Person 2 refers to this observation as “Person 1’s Law” for convenience when discussing the observation and whether or not it is true.
There’s nothing wrong or “graceless” with Person 1 then using the term themselves, even for the purpose of arguing in favor of their assertion (which is what this web page is doing).
Some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law
Yeah this is just medler’s Law in action.
Eh. Someone named it after him, and the name stuck. It's a good concept. Why shouldn't he? What does it matter? Who's harmed by this?
Noone has to be harmed for it to be graceless, its just an opinion
My thoughts, exactly. A law, really? A domain dedicated for this? Seems someone really wants their name in the CS history books.