photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55505696_10157071686842264_272509154

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/55505696_10157071686842264_2725091547413479424_o_10157071686837264.jpg Now, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….Steve PenderAlgorithmic law for eventual AI law enforcementMar 25, 2019, 9:57 AMJWarren PrescottAfter 30 years of writing, reading and using engineering specifications, I appreciate precise language. Engineering specs have to transfer complex information that must be understood by not just other engineers, but salesmen, expeditors, purchasing, inspectors and the craft. We have to take upper-tier specifications and create procedures, purchase orders and numerous other documents. There is a clear hierarchy and revisions to specifications supersede the previous revisions.

Unfortunately, the current method used in writing the law is inherently irrational and confusing. It is a hodgepodge of overlapping statutory laws, regulations, procedures, ordinances that is all but impossible to unravel. It is as if lawyers created for themselves a system that excluded even the educated from logical discourse.

For example, I can create a living trust in one state and it not be valid in another – because HOW it was written – by lawyers… But the same lawyers can (for a fee) reword the trust so it has the “right” words for their state. One would think that if the lawyers could interpret the original trust, a judge could.Mar 25, 2019, 10:26 AMAaron BradleyWhat a breath of fresh air…Mar 25, 2019, 5:43 PMNow, if laws were constructed in this form and in operational language, (including the tests of reciprocity and limits as well) ….