> You're assuming that `police.knowledge` is sourced from an infallible oracle
I thought it was clear we cannot assume police knowledge is infallible. Sure, let's refactor to `police.knowledge` is now `police.belief`. I do not think this changes things.
> You need a giant try-catch around the whole thing
Sure, I agree here too. In fact, everything was predicated on this! It is all predicated on things not always working!
>>>> The logic works just fine if you recognize that it is impossible to achieve 100% success rate. It is absolutely insane to me that on a website full of engineers people do not consider failure analysis when it comes to laws.
The point was to show that there is no good logic for not doing this. I disagreed that you can only reach the conclusion that Sanctuary Cities are a good idea "IF AND ONLY IF" you view illegal immigrants as humans. That's incorrect. The conclusion is still valid even if you dehumanize them and are looking out for yourself.
>>>> Seems like you could be completely selfish, hate illegal immigrants, AND benefit through policies of Sanctuary Cities and giving them TINs
Certainly we should make this far more robust if we are to actually deploy it. Hell, most of my functions don't even execute anything! They just have comments! Critique it all you want, there's a shit ton wrong if we want to try to execute it. But I was writing fucking pseudocode for the explicit purpose of discussion. Hell yeah there's a lot more conditional statements, catches, interrupts, loops, and all sorts of stuff that needs to happen prior to the pseudocode takes place. But the fuck do you want from me? A link to a GitHub project with a fully fleshed out legal framework that's bulletproof and written in rust? We're trying to have a conversation here. Even if I did that no one is going to read that here. To have a conversation we need to at least have good faith interpretation of one another. Hell, that's one of those conditionals that even precedes our conditional logic!
And, aren't we on the same fucking side? What the hell are you yelling at me for when a good faith interpretation of my comment reads in agreement with your response?! There's absolutely nothing I wrote that I'm lacking knowledge of basic human rights.
Were you confused because I wrote "I disagree" in response to hypeatei? Did you assume I disagreed with their point? Because I was in agreement. The part I disagreed with was the "only works if you consider illegal immigrants as people" part. I apologize, I dropped the "only" in the quote, but something seriously went wrong if that misstep results in a complete misinterpretation. My point is that even if you dehumanize illegal immigrants[0], Sanctuary Cities are *STILL* a good decision. I do not think it is hard to reach the conclusion that I'm saying "There is no good logic in which a Sanctuary City is not a good idea." What is going on here?! Are we just fighting for the sake of fighting?!
[0] I need to be *ABSOLUTELY CLEAR* that I am not condoning this!