William Alsup, the coding judge who decides tech cases
theverge.com
theverge.com
Especially on HN, I often see (a) cynicism, and (b) the idea that a judge cannot have and show emotions, or that it's somehow "unprofessional" to make a joke. Alsup is the perfect counterexample how judges (should ideally) behave.
One remarkable passage was in one of the early Waymo vs Uber transcripts, where he makes an impressive case for the proceedings to be public. There is nothing he personally gains from public access to these arguments and documents–he simply believes it to be important for the rule of law.
Clever.
I love this sentence.
Edit: context-- lawyer talking about GNU, judge asks what GNU stands for, lawyer tells him, judge responds, "That doesn't make sense." A judge who himself codes.
Alsup's words:
> I did not know this recursive feature of the definition. Once it was explained to me, I was like, ‘Okay, that’s kind of cute.'
GNU is a bad acronym IMO because it is anti-social to use an inside joke for the name of an operating system whose raison d'être is to be shared with the public.
"Hello, I'm Neu. What's your name?"
"My name is This-is-not-my-name."
I feel like Neu should just move on and socialize with other folks, but maybe that's just me.
This article is a prime example of the need for simple and non intimidating languages that are accessible to beginners. The sort of languages that should be taught in schools, exactly for the benefit mentioned in the article: not to make a generation of programmers but for programming to be part of the common general culture like electricity or calculus.
Without such knowledge, courts and those in power seem to more commonly turn to analogies provided by each side. What makes an analogy is not its accuracy but how much relatedness the person hearing it feels, especially when we rely on an adversarial courts system wherein each side is expected to 'explain' how technology works.
While the complexity of our laws obviously bears some responsibility here, it would seem that the education and capacity necessary to understanding the technical arguments is critical. We aren't in the 1700's anymore...if the judges do not have the ability to understand when they are being misled about technology what do we do? Are their resources for them to turn to that are unbiased? Do they have a budget and time to do so? Or do they just rely on each sides paid expert witness and we role the dice on which argument of how technology works the judge finds more compelling?
1. At least in Australia, where I work, most judges are appointed in their 50s and 60s, meaning those currently on the bench likely went to law school in the 70s at the latest. Computer classes were relatively rare, and most lawyers back then did their degrees in Arts and Law. Science/Law degrees did not become popular (relatively speaking; they're still a distinct minority of lawyers) until the late 90s. That cohort has not yet been appointed to the bench.
2. Judges do have associates or tipstaffs (in the U.S. they're called "clerks"), and there are a decent number who have STEM degrees. They can, to some extent, assist the judges in understanding the issues so as to work out what questions they need to ask to educate themselves and to bring out the issues in the case.
3. Managing STEM issues in cases (and this is not just confined to software but includes science generally, as many cases involve chemistry, biology and physics) is generally done by lawyers who have relevant degrees. Generally speaking, we know enough to stop it going off the rails, and we try to pick experts who know and can explain the concepts to non-technical judges. We try to educate them, and de-jargonify the issues where appropriate. This is not that different from picking lawyers with shipping expertise in shipping cases, insurance expertise in insurance cases, etc.
4. Thankfully, we don't have juries for civil trials other than sometimes in defamation cases. Frankly, the use of juries in civil litigation in American courts is an anachronism that is pretty astonishing to non-US lawyers. (It's up there with electing some judges.) I think this is the real problem at the level of fact-finding. Testimony has to be aimed not at intelligent, well-educated judges who have an open mind and are trying to learn issues about coding (or the function of mRNA, or stereochemistry, or hydrostatic forces, or any other specialist area like forensic accounting, or how banks do their daily reconciliations with each other etc), but at the people who were unable to dodge jury duty. The idea that a case of any significance is left to a jury is unfathomable to me.
Of course, you could see it as a benefit too, since its limited in the degree that it binds other courts.
Somewhere in the family archives is a similarly nostalgic photo of me, circa 1972. My radios were not quite as spiffy. For the most part, each crop of beginners bought the hand-me-down radios from the guys a couple years ahead of us, and handed them off the same way to the next crop. Fond memories. There is something about the smell of a hot, dusty, vacuum tube warming up on a winter evening that is unforgettably sweet.
B) Somebody needs to hook homeboy up with DOSBox.
Isn't the system fucked if it needs a divine intervention/a hero to function properly?
I think this has happened by coincidence a few times actually. I know that back in the early 1800s, the District of Massachusetts handled a ton of fishing/whaling related cases.
Thanking God doesn't indicate how something came about (decree or permission), only that God could have brought about something different and chose not to. Thus, any blessing, supernatural or natural, flows from the hand of God.
private static void rangeCheck(int arrayLen, int fromIndex, int toIndex {
if (fromIndex > toIndex)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("fromIndex(" + fromIndex +
") > toIndex(" + toIndex+")");
if (fromIndex < 0)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(fromIndex);
if (toIndex > arrayLen)
throw new ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException(toIndex);
}