> And software has become insanely complicated and nearly impossible to navigate without paying the software engineer toll.
Is this somehow bad? The most complicated software, by far, is proprietary software made by large companies, like Google, that are taking the penalty of increased complexity on their end in exchange for (somewhat) happy customers - and guess what? Their developers are paid boatloads of money, so they're getting a decent deal.
Meanwhile, many open-source software systems have managed to keep their complexity somewhat in check (at the expense of functionality).
Software is complex when developers make it complex, and users rarely have to care anyway.
> Life is complicated, and so is the law.
That doesn't follow. Life is complicated, and so is software? No, software is complicated in some cases because of business reasons, and in other cases because of poor design.
Furthermore, there's two massive differences between the two:
First, you're not legally required to use Gmail, but you are legally required to understand and follow the tax code - everyone is, unlike the vast majority of software, where you can pick and choose. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is factually true - therefore, the law has to be understandable to the vast majority of the population (not just the average - the law has to be understandable to those who failed out of high school and have an IQ below 80).
Second, code is an implementation detail that the vast majority of people don't have to interact with, but people do have to interact with the law directly, which means that a comparison between code and law is apples-to-oranges - the correct comparison is software interface to law, and virtually everyone you meet will tell you that it's easier to use Gmail than to understand the IRS tax code when reading it directly.
The evidence just keeps piling up that the legal system is overly complex.
Is this somehow bad? The most complicated software, by far, is proprietary software made by large companies, like Google, that are taking the penalty of increased complexity on their end in exchange for (somewhat) happy customers - and guess what? Their developers are paid boatloads of money, so they're getting a decent deal.
Meanwhile, many open-source software systems have managed to keep their complexity somewhat in check (at the expense of functionality).
Software is complex when developers make it complex, and users rarely have to care anyway.
> Life is complicated, and so is the law.
That doesn't follow. Life is complicated, and so is software? No, software is complicated in some cases because of business reasons, and in other cases because of poor design.
Furthermore, there's two massive differences between the two:
First, you're not legally required to use Gmail, but you are legally required to understand and follow the tax code - everyone is, unlike the vast majority of software, where you can pick and choose. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is factually true - therefore, the law has to be understandable to the vast majority of the population (not just the average - the law has to be understandable to those who failed out of high school and have an IQ below 80).
Second, code is an implementation detail that the vast majority of people don't have to interact with, but people do have to interact with the law directly, which means that a comparison between code and law is apples-to-oranges - the correct comparison is software interface to law, and virtually everyone you meet will tell you that it's easier to use Gmail than to understand the IRS tax code when reading it directly.
The evidence just keeps piling up that the legal system is overly complex.