[cxr]

The way that the law is treated by courts can be very unintuitive to programmers, who often seem to think that all it takes is to construct some clever bytecode sequence for CourtVM and then you win. It doesn't work like that. There may be someone who can explain in a way that you understand better, but the short version is that you are likely to be very disappointed by treating it like something that can be "hacked".

[Retric]

I was using existing precedent which doesn’t act like bite code but does weigh heavily, while you were referring to intuition. Such as my point that a computer responding with yes doesn’t override a prior statement that someone doesn’t have permission to use a system which literally has hundreds of examples and isn’t in doubt. You seemingly understand you lost, but keep wanting to respond.

Thus I accept your defeat but find your continued commentary silly.

[cxr]

It's almost as if posting condescending explanations that don't track the discussion while smugly framing it as if you're correcting some misapprehension of the person you're interacting with is something that can be obnoxious.

It's okay if you're still confused. The world is tricky. Not everyone is equipped to reason about everything they encounter, even they see other people are, and that's okay if you can't. But if you're going to offer your interpretation you need to actually look into what the other person is arguing—not just make assumptions.