Is the safety-valve super-secret propitietery technology? On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 19:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:28 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > > I submit the following Proposal, "Don't vote for this", AI-3, and >> > > AP-pend it: >> > >> > The created rule wouldn't actually work (for interesting reasons which >> > are almost along the line of a scam). That said, that's not something >> > I'd like to rely on. >> >> Yah, that was the safety (at least the reason I have in mind that it won't >> work - dunno if it's same as yours). Suppose I could fix it pretty simply... > > Is it becoming a thing to write Terrible Proposals but to make sure > that they don't work, on the basis that it can be very hard to prevent > them passing? > > (That said, this one only seems to have one safety valve, unless you > consider the name. The last time I wrote a Terrible Proposal it had a > safety valve /and/ insufficient Power to work.) > > -- > ais523
-- >From V.J. Rada
