[coldtea]

>"Software people" have an above-average understanding of probabilities overall. It's politicians who tend to think in absolutes.

If I had a penny for everytime a software person / nerd on HN and elsewhere made an argument that shows little understanding of probabilities and statistics, or perhaps only a theoritical understand that's context dependent (meaning they know the math, but magically forget them when discussing some specific topic), I'd be rich.

>"It works better for totalitarian regimes" is the argument for not doing it

Parent is not justyfing them doing it. They are explaining how little exhaustive their implementation can be, while still being effective for their goals.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If I had a penny for everytime a software person / nerd on HN and elsewhere made an argument that shows little understanding of probabilities and statistics, or perhaps only a theoritical understand that's context dependent (meaning they know the math, but magically forget them when discussing some specific topic), I'd be rich.

If 75% of people in some group are above average then 25% of them still aren't.

> They are explaining how little exhaustive their implementation can be, while still being effective for their goals.

But their goals are different than yours. Or if they're not, you're the baddies.

[coldtea]

>But their goals are different than yours. Or if they're not, you're the baddies

Which is beside the point. Parent (and me explaining what the parent men) aren't approving of the goals of those proposing such laws. Nor are we going into their merits or their evilness, whether pro or against.

We are making a merely technical point about how such a measure doesn't need to be 100% enforced air-tightly to have the desired purpose (again: desired by the governments, not by us).

And we go into this argument because someone dismissed the impact of such measures with the reasoning that since they can't be fully enforced, they're unimportant.