There's a distinction that's probably only obvious to people with some grad-level math: Corner cases are not the same as rare cases. Neither implies the other. "Corners" are a measure-0 subset of a space where open-nbhd/non-singleton methods don't apply Ie "special treatment"
-
-
Or just a hard-to-abstract state of affairs. Like the edge of a generative, creative-destruction dynamic
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
for example, in coding, the right abstraction (almost always) results in writing MUCH less code to solve the problem. if I encounter some code where EVERYTHING is being handled as a special case that's a huge code smell. means wrong abstraction.
-
You assume abstractability is entirely a function of the intelligence of the agent acting on the context. I disagree with that premise. It's fundamentally a propert of the domain. Tax law is less abstractable than classical Newtonian mechanics.
-
no way. you've got a really powerful implicit notion of "good abstraction produces good results" here and I think that's wrong. tax law is extremely easily abstractable but you make a value judgment that elegant abstractions of it are bad laws. e.g. flat tax.
-
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about say writing tax software for existing taxes, not legislation. It's got high Kolmogorov complexity. You can't write elegant code for it because it's a bundle of special exemptions and stuff.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.