Reading this hillarious article, another article, about the Volcker rule possibly does not restrict banks as intended due to the misuse of double negative. The artifcat is well known in logic of Computer Scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. The name I learned of it by was De Morgan’s rule.

Now, I could rant about how I called for more CS majors to go into politics instead of complaining about Trump’s presidency because the government really do need people who can think straight and have practice in highly complex systems.

But really, I think I heard it in highschool math class… So… Those C’s on politician’s tests actually have a practical impact on their performance of governmental duties?? Wow!! I am shocked.

SERIOUSLY, I really really didn’t think governing needs math. I feel that way mostly because the leaders I see and he successes they experience. Didn’t ever look like honesty, and academic performance, and other very Asian values that I have, was really that useful. My conclusion was, don’t do that if you want to keep your values, they’re still great and I am still great, we have our separate peaces. But I am shocked awake!

But even more honestly, I can say that having read a different section of common law recently, I think the “coding convention” of law is… not ideal…. It’s not just this major banking law. These referential links are common in The US Code. Partial inclusion of another section, like “we apply sections I.ii.A of blah blah blah, but not parts e and f” are common. You know e and f are subsections of I.ii.A due to capitalization of a single letter, and context, of course. This lack of firm referential integrity is just one of many many things that make law hard to read for the common people.

The conventional answer to this puzzlement is that one needs professional and expensive legal training to read, write or execute this mess. (Aka Law School)

Or we could just rewrite the law and legal system in more formal and rigorous systems.

Another argument against more formalization is that, in this case, the enforcement is performed by human interpreters who have been applying the law in spirit. The fact of human performance and interpretation of the unclear is by design how the system works. If we formalized it, it would remove the role of spirit in law and that’s not the way we want to do it.

Not something I can argue against lacking formal, expensive, and admission-policy-dependent training in these spirits.

I’ve been watching the Atlas Shrugged on Amazon Prime, and apparently this “and or or” is a thing. It’s amazing what Rand wrote about, one is forced to think about her influences, where are the fine people who made her write these ideas? Where are their descendants and students? Her expressed hatred for political manipulations to impede human technological progress that ultimately enhances our lives. Is this the way we are? Is this an American thing or a Human thing? I mean, Rand would color Musk a hero! Which he is, but I resent that his heroism was made possible in part at my unjustly incurred financial expense.

Do we need to move out of the country or off the planet? Or should we stand our ground? There always have been, and always will be, driven, crazy, rude, manipulative, narrow minded, obnoxious, sacrilegious, and amoral outlaws in any country at any time. America always prides it self in allowing them to roam most happily and most freely by having the most advanced and most righteous government to administer them, and everyone else, each of whom are also kept the happiest and the freest people of the world. Perhaps we Americans should at least try to maintain this advantage, even if only in expectation.