Hacker Read

ubernostrum · 2016-12-07 05:55:03

If it's only going to be conveniently enforced, it does raise the question of whose convenience is prioritized and why.

avelis | karma 350 | avg karma 1.4 · | 2021-06-24 17:09:42+00:00

It is IMO but who is going to actually enforce that?

wouldbecouldbe | karma 1523 | avg karma 2.79 · | 2023-09-16 05:55:01

Yeah sometimes you want it but sometimes you dont. I think they are enforcing it to save resources

nathanaldensr | karma 4368 | avg karma 2.6 · | 2022-08-11 16:51:37

Yes; it's the old fallacy of "well, I'm not currently inconvenienced by this law, so therefore it's fine."

enraged_camel | karma 16714 | avg karma 2.78 · | 2015-12-29 01:28:10+00:00

I think "selectively enforced" is a better way to put it.

CydeWeys | karma 28315 | avg karma 3.91 · | 2017-08-26 19:56:40

It seems like they must be, as that'd be the obvious solution. I wonder what the motivation for that rule is, and how soon it'll change.

dragonwriter | karma 118260 | avg karma 2.17 · | 2024-05-01 03:48:06

I don't see how rescheduling to a less-restrictive category is a mandate to change the existing enforcement policy to a more restrictive one.

9dev | karma 4458 | avg karma 3.43 · | 2024-06-01 09:31:32

I still wonder why we need that arbitrary restriction anyway?

jgalt212 | karma 2685 | avg karma 0.84 · | 2019-11-12 19:18:42

Your point is valid, but I think there was a mis-read or mis-statement. The parent comment probably should have addressed the difficulty of enforcing such provisions.

dmourati | karma 1032 | avg karma 1.89 · | 2013-12-18 07:43:18+00:00

I agree this whole piece comes down to discretion.

sparky_z | karma 2166 | avg karma 4.14 · | 2021-01-20 18:54:34

Yeah, that jumped out at me too. What could possibly be the reason for that? Who would enforce it?

ClumsyPilot | karma 18478 | avg karma 2.3 · | 2019-09-19 23:58:21

I would say that's an administrative issue that's a bit tangential.

hkmurakami | karma 18245 | avg karma 3.63 · | 2016-01-27 04:49:02+00:00

I frankly can't understand how the OP's first response after Matz's CoC rough draft is "now let's talk about enforcement." The priorities seem misconstrued to me.

Semaphor | karma 13668 | avg karma 2.69 · | 2012-07-19 10:44:22+00:00

Not related to them wanting to do it / enforcing it, they might be required to have that in there for legal reasons.

jopsen | karma 4072 | avg karma 2.0 · | 2018-07-02 20:45:21+00:00

I'm pretty sure this is strongly enforced, and it's unfair that the article doesn't highlight this.

munk-a | karma 15496 | avg karma 2.93 · | 2021-08-18 14:24:37

I think there is some value in retaining the fact that this requirement is being enacted via an emergency order though.

saraid216 | karma 6617 | avg karma 1.54 · | 2013-07-31 20:05:49+00:00

I've never been able to decide whether or not we should rigorously enforce Title 4 Chapter 1. On one hand, such enforcement would be ridiculously overbearing. On the other hand, such enforcement would be ridiculously overbearing.

DuskStar | karma 5988 | avg karma 3.01 · | 2020-04-15 16:42:32+00:00

My reading is that either restrictions were sufficient before, or the new ones won't be enough either. And the more onerous the restrictions, the less likely it is that people will be willing to follow the important ones in the future.

bulatb | karma 841 | avg karma 2.61 · | 2017-12-04 21:12:11+00:00

I think it's the opposite: it feels like this law might create an incentive for certain people to go first and thereby change the meaning of not going first for everyone else.

But I can't support it, so I'm probably wrong.

reply

hamandcheese | karma 4274 | avg karma 3.04 · | 2020-07-22 07:13:21

a) seems like a very arbitrary restriction