Comment by pdpi
9 days ago
Fundamentally, rules almost always come with compromises — for the sake of making rules understandable by humans, they have to be relatively simple. Simple rules for complex situations will always forbid some amount of good behaviour, and allow some bad behaviour. Many of society's parasites live in the space of "allowable bad behaviour", but there is a lot of value to knowing how to exploit the "forbidden good behaviour" space.
The worst of all worlds is when a blind application of the rules results in bad behavior.
This situation seems to come up frequently, and I'm very often appalled at how readily otherwise normal people will "follow the rules" even when it's clearly and objectively bad, and there may even be existing pathways to seek exceptions.
Some types of people are “rule followers” are can’t fathom breaking any rules.
There are also “rule breakers” who can’t fathom being told what to do.
Both types of people are insufferable.
> There are also “rule breakers” who can’t fathom being told what to do.
> Both types of people are insufferable.
He says, on "Hacker" News
1 reply →
puts Killing in the Name on at full blast
AKA "perverse incentive"[0]
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
A perverse incentive implies following the letter of the law, but cheating the spirit of the law.
GP is just talking about inefficient rules
In law there is the concept of "rules VS. Standards" which seems to relate to what you explain.
Example?
For which side?
Most examples boil down to common sense. Nobody is going to arrest a 14 year old for driving their dying parent to the hospital.
Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool.
There is a difference between law and morality, and humans will use the second to selectively enforce the former.
> Similarly, it is reprehensible but legal to pull up a chair and watch a child drown in a pool.
In which country? Even for the US I don't believe the law system is that crappy.
37 replies →
Going 10mph over the speed limit on a highway, especially because you’re a little late, isn’t a big deal.
Going 5mph UNDER in a neighborhood with kids playing around on the street is too fast.
This example does not illustrate what do you think it does.
The first is technically illegal. The second is not only within the law, it's required by the law. The speed limit isn't a limit and in most jurisdictions, the law requires you to reduce to a safe speed when the conditions require it. The speed limit is not the only law that dictates a legal speed.
Making food in public for homeless people runs afoul of food safety laws
Or, further, taking waste food to distribute to homeless is also against the rules. I used to work at a pizza hut express, we would have small personal pan pizzas in a ready to go area for like 15-20 min then throw them away if they were unsold. At the end of the day you'd have a trash can full of personal pan pizzas that were honestly fine to eat. You'd get fired for doing anything with them though.
A classical example of legal bad behaviour is that of patent trolls.
For illegal good behaviour, see Aaron Swartz
2 replies →
Not the poster, but some examples;
- emotional support animals - take a penny, leave a penny - ‘discretion’ and speed limits - qualified immunity