← Back to context

Comment by flutas

2 months ago

Per the post, this also wouldn't fly.

> Believe it or not, there’s case law on “would” versus “could” with respect to safety. “Could” means you could imagine something happening. But the legal standard for “would” is “clear evidence of harm leaving no reasonable doubt to the judge”. The statute set the bar for me very low and I managed to clear it.

Reminds me of Shall versus May in RFCs. (Though those are, of course, statements of obligation rather than natural consequence.)