> where did systemd come into the picture? Don't be obtuse.
  >>> if the algorithm cannot be explained in easily understandable language (as determined by a jury), then it's illegal.

It came here and because just the other day there was a big thread on systemsd where plenty of people were complaining about how difficult it was[0]. I'm really not convinced that the average person could understand systemd.

The thing is that the simpler you explain it, the less informed the jury is. So the question is if you can find an explanation that is sufficient to make informed decisions. The reality of this is that this then becomes more dependent on who's a smooth talker. Who can convince the jury that they understand and understand in the way they want to. There's a big bias in the balance of power here. Details are hard to explain and if anything relies on something subtle, well you're fucked. So all you need to do to abuse employees is make the algorithm sufficiently complex and get a smooth talking lawyer.

  > The problem with high dimensional LP solvers, optimisation problems, PID controllers, or other systems with a feedback loop is that it's very tempting to include revenue

Some of these are fully interpretable, others are not. But most people have a really hard time understanding high dimensions. Where a straight line isn't "straight" (geodesic) or how the average can be a meaningless value, or how a unit ball inscribed in a unit cube can extend out of the unit cube. Problem with high dimensions is that it is really hard to explain without math because you no longer can rely on any visualization reference.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42749402