On 7/7/2019 9:18 PM, James Cook wrote: >
Well, G. said e proposed the rule to illustrate a security hole in R106, which eir "power-limit precedence" proposal, soon to be adopted,is meant to fix.
That was the inspiration, but now that it's (about to be) nerfed to working on power=1 things only (I hope...), I'd like to see it work or at least see attempts at that - at power=1 it could be a genuinely valid political tool. -G.
