I am the PERFECT audience for this book. I have been teaching law for 38 years. I have a boundless fascination for this topic I can only call rapturous, incandescent, almost giddy. And going in, I thought, great, tying laws to algorithms and so on.
Then I started listening. I can’t deal with this framework. If you define enough things as a “rule,” you end up defining nothing, and just muddying the waters. We already have different concepts for ideals, paradigms, models, cultural norms, customs, etc. Something has to be a boundary that sets apart a “rule,” and right out of the gate, I find that boundary unsatisfactory here. I have seen other authors try to redefine something already well defined, such as shoehorning in new words for well-established concepts in statistics. An old term, I guess, is “reinventing the wheel.” That is the feeling I get here, and it has a sufficient squirm factor to cause me to do something very unusual: abandon a book pretty early. I’m sure I’m missing some good insights, but I’m not willing to sit through this, to get there.