In Administrative Law, "powers" are often granted to government ministers. A power is the ability to do something (e.g. reject an application). They are often cast in this form:
The minister may reject the application if:
(i). <specific situation 1>
(ii). <specific situation 2>
(iii). for some other reason
It's quite bizarre format, carefully constraining the choice, then opening it up utterly, like Douglas Adams' editorial expenses joke.
I mention it here, because the first two reasons are like an abstraction; the last reason is like a transparent abstraction. It enables you to get things done, even if the drafter of the legislation hadn't considered the particular situation you find yourself in. It's an admission of pragmatic humility.
However, I must add a counterpoint. I really love the abstractions that do work supremely well - like arithmetic, field access and so on. We probably think of them as fundamentals rather than abstractions; the greatest testament an abstraction can receive.
Can't find it. Will look again later. It's basically the same as above, but for when hitchhiker writers' can charge things to their expense accounts (or maybe for granting a writeup, and journalistic integrity?), and the last line is "You really want to."
I think it's followed by "Ford tried to avoid that one, because it always involved giving the editors a cut."
Ah! Now I have those extra words, google helps:
The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a powerful organ. Indeed, its influence is so prodigious that strict rules have had to be drawn up by its editorial staff to prevent its misuse. So none of its field researchers are allowed to accept any kind of services, discounts or preferential treatment of any kind in return for editorial favours unless:
a) they have made a bona fide attempt to pay for a service in the normal way;
b) their lives would be otherwise in danger;
c) they really want to.
Since invoking the third rule always involved giving the editor a cut, Ford always preferred to muck about with the first two.
I mention it here, because the first two reasons are like an abstraction; the last reason is like a transparent abstraction. It enables you to get things done, even if the drafter of the legislation hadn't considered the particular situation you find yourself in. It's an admission of pragmatic humility.
However, I must add a counterpoint. I really love the abstractions that do work supremely well - like arithmetic, field access and so on. We probably think of them as fundamentals rather than abstractions; the greatest testament an abstraction can receive.