Comment by j4coh
1 day ago
I always thought this “a child should be able to draw it” thing was an even better example of a vaguely contrarian factoid that sort of makes you sound smart if you don’t think about it too much, so it becomes endlessly repeated. Which is an interesting phenomenon in its own way.
Interesting point. Can anyone here draw a geometrically, not semantically, accurate Apple logo, without references? I can't, a reasonably convincing humanoid heads are much easier than that.
It's not a fact(oid) at all as it's not a statement about reality. it's a principle. You don't have to agree with it, but others might disagree about the quality of the flag you might produce avoiding it.
Sure but I’m more talking about the way people use it than what it is in reality. Obviously it’s not a real truism, but if you heard it once then it’s something vaguely smart sounding you can say whenever a topic about flags comes up, even when it’s essentially a non-sequitur as in this case. People find it nearly irresistible to mention, which is fascinating.
I realize people technically say things to look smart, but i think you might have a specific beef with this topic. How often does the subject of evaluating flag quality come up in your social circles?
1 reply →
Real world constraints mean any well constructed principle must at times be violated. That's not a flaw in the principle. A good principle for principles ("rules" in varying uses of the word) is that they need to be simple. Rules/principles of any kind are guides not immutable policies. It would be insane to create immutable policies as the world is constantly changing.
If a rule is overly complex, no one can remember it and there can be no expectation for people to follow.
tldr: All rules are guides. Be they rules rules or "rules" rules
1 reply →