Zvi has already addressed this—arguing that if (D) was equivalent to ‘has a similar cost to >=$500m in harm’, then there would be no need for (B) and (C) detailing specific harms, you could just have a version of (D) that mentions the $500m, indicating that that’s not a sufficient condition. I find that fairly persuasive, though it would be good to hear a lawyer’s perspective
“This very clearly does not” apply to X and “I have an argument that it doesn’t apply to X” are not the same thing.
(And it wouldn’t be hard for a court to make some excuse like “these specific harms have to be $500m, and other harms ‘of similar severity’ means either worse things with less than $500m damage or less bad things with more than $500m damage”. That would explain the need to detail specific harms while putting no practical restriction on what the law covers, since the court can claim that anything is a worse harm.
Always assume that laws of this type are interpreted by an autistic, malicious, genie.)
Zvi has already addressed this—arguing that if (D) was equivalent to ‘has a similar cost to >=$500m in harm’, then there would be no need for (B) and (C) detailing specific harms, you could just have a version of (D) that mentions the $500m, indicating that that’s not a sufficient condition. I find that fairly persuasive, though it would be good to hear a lawyer’s perspective
“This very clearly does not” apply to X and “I have an argument that it doesn’t apply to X” are not the same thing.
(And it wouldn’t be hard for a court to make some excuse like “these specific harms have to be $500m, and other harms ‘of similar severity’ means either worse things with less than $500m damage or less bad things with more than $500m damage”. That would explain the need to detail specific harms while putting no practical restriction on what the law covers, since the court can claim that anything is a worse harm.
Always assume that laws of this type are interpreted by an autistic, malicious, genie.)
What do you mean “of this type?” Why not just say “laws” full stop? What type are you referring to?
Sure, but you weren’t providing reasons to not believe the argument, or reasons why your interpretation is at least as implausible