[drewblaisdell]

> The judge ruled based on the law.

Are you basing this on anything other than the ideal that we Americans are taught about how courts work? In practice, a reasoned argument can be made for two or more interpretations of law and judges are often entirely "political".

[rectang]

One of the great distinctions between natural languages and programming languages is that programming languages have comparatively little ambiguity — because computers do not have the capacity to consider external context when interpreting the intention of the programmer, and thus cannot resolve ambiguous constructs.

You'd hope that tech folks, from constantly having to accommodate this defect of computers, would develop a sophisticated appreciation for ambiguity. Instead, it seems that the ability to appreciate nuance atrophies.

Legal language may be more formalized than everyday language, but there is still lots and lots of ambiguity. The idea that there is a single correct interpretation of "the law" is nothing more than collective self-deception.

[thelastbender12]

The distinction between natural language and programming languages is interesting, given the push towards machine learning and programming 2.0 that switches explicit instructions in code for training using examples.

[not2b]

AB5 was very clear about how Uber and Lyft drivers should be classified. There wasn't any ambiguity and it wasn't a hard case.

If Prob 22 wins, then that part of AB5 is overruled. If not, drivers are employees entitled to minimum wage and everything else employees are entitled to.

[gnopgnip]

And AB5 was just clarifying what the law after Dynamex v. Superior Court

[pmiller2]

"Judges rule based on the law," and "judges' decisions are inherently political" are not inconsistent statements. In other words, why not both?