On 10/27/25 10:19 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote:
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.
Untitled proto (AI=3):
Amend rule 1728 (Tabled Actions) by replacing "without obfuscation" with
"without non-trivial obfuscation"
[This would cover the case of a typo too]
--
Mischief
Collar, Collector, Prime Minister
Hat: steampunk hat
