secretsnail9 via agora-discussion [2025-10-26 03:22]: > On Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 7:56 PM EarlyRetirement via agora-business < > [email protected]> wrote: > > […] > > This seems like it contradicts the guidelines for obfuscation provided in > CFJ 3747: > […]
I think your interpretation makes more sense, honestly. Saying the thing is in code and so is “obviously” obfuscated is kinda worring. Is a typo a form of obfuscation? Even so, banning that, it's not far from saying particular grammatical constructions are “obfuscated”. As a matter of semantics, I'd say “obfuscation” must include some form of cognitive consideration – i.e., how hard is it for a reader to interpret something. I'm not a linguist, but I imagine we could distinguish between things we can read “intuitively” (like the code in question), and things that require rational effort to decode. Anyway, I support the reconsideration. -- juan
