How do you define that? If I write a 'Hello World' program in C++, you could argue that the hard part of compiling, linking, and generating assembly code was done by a computer, so programming is 90% automated, even though most people would understand the automation level to be 0%.
You might argue this is a flawed example, but we've automated huge workflows at work that turned major time-consuming PITAs into something it wouldn't occur to most people that a human has anything to do with it.
Law does not work like engineering does. Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
You could try to convince a jury of this argument, sure. Do you think it will work? And if you do go with that argument then are you actually convincing the jury of your guilty conscience- often an important part of a white collar crime where state of mind of the defendant is very important?
If "most people would understand the automation level to be 0%" then you can't represent that the automation level is something else, unless you're explicit about deviating from the commonly understood meaning of 'automation'.
Which is why you can often get away with this sort of bluster. But not when your own emails show that you yourselves considered that to be not the true number. You can report wonky metrics that don't measure anything real to your investors, but you can't report falsified ones.
Yeah, specifying an automation rate of 93-97% to investors when it's "effectively 0%" per your own executives... That's pretty egregious.
How do you define that? If I write a 'Hello World' program in C++, you could argue that the hard part of compiling, linking, and generating assembly code was done by a computer, so programming is 90% automated, even though most people would understand the automation level to be 0%.
You might argue this is a flawed example, but we've automated huge workflows at work that turned major time-consuming PITAs into something it wouldn't occur to most people that a human has anything to do with it.
Law does not work like engineering does. Lawyers, judges and juries understand the intent of the law, and are not bound like we software engineers are to the exact commands in front of them.
You could try to convince a jury of this argument, sure. Do you think it will work? And if you do go with that argument then are you actually convincing the jury of your guilty conscience- often an important part of a white collar crime where state of mind of the defendant is very important?
1 reply →
If "most people would understand the automation level to be 0%" then you can't represent that the automation level is something else, unless you're explicit about deviating from the commonly understood meaning of 'automation'.
1 reply →
Which is why you can often get away with this sort of bluster. But not when your own emails show that you yourselves considered that to be not the true number. You can report wonky metrics that don't measure anything real to your investors, but you can't report falsified ones.
That's what judges and juries are for. Law is not computer code.