>then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.
It seems to me that any such arbiter would need to have the practical ability to interpret the human intent behind imprecise/incorrect language and author/fix code. I think that would be a major advance in computer science and the most important application would be writing software.
I attended Pomona College, which is in a consortium with Mudd. Our CS departments coordinate with one another and students take classes at both schools.
More than 50% of CS majors in my graduating class were women. And far from having admissions preferences in favor of women, Pomona actually does the opposite. The college's bylaws require an even distribution of men and women, leading to a higher admission rate for men (given that substantially more women apply for admission).
Women in our department definitely benefited from the same kind of efforts as Harvey Mudd: hiring women as faculty, providing summer research opportunities, and sponsoring participation in the broader community of women in CS (eg. through the Grace Hopper conference). I can't speak for my classmates, but I'm sure the things that attracted me to the field - it's fascinating and leads to good career opportunities - also attract women. If you could reduce the sexism I hear is endemic in the CS departments at many other schools I'm sure their graduating classes would also include more women.
Some humans categorize every noun by gender and every verb by conjugation behavior... and even memorize multiple definitions and connotations for thousands of words.
You make dubious claims in paragraph one, invent motivations in paragraphs two and three, then attack those motivations in paragraph four. Orin is a well known law professor, and he definitely doesn't care about how many page views Eugene Volokh's blog gets.
Orin Kerr's second post is an indictment of the government's entire strategy in prosecuting cases. He's using the fact that Aaron's treatment was a standard application of this strategy to illustrate his issues with it. It sounds like you wanted him to invent some point as grounds to equivocate. Maybe that would make his post be better received in the tech community, but we shouldn't expect legal scholars to be motivated by that concern.
It seems to me that any such arbiter would need to have the practical ability to interpret the human intent behind imprecise/incorrect language and author/fix code. I think that would be a major advance in computer science and the most important application would be writing software.