The lawyer wants both warm fuzzies and charitrons, but has conflated the two, and will probably get buzzkilled (and lose out on both measures) if the distinction is made clear. The best outcome is one where the lawyer gets to maximize both, and that happens at the end of a long road that begins with introspection about what warm fuzzies ought to mean.
It would probably be best to just remove all questions that contain certain key phrases like "this image" or "seen here". You'll get a few false positives but with such a big database that's no great loss.
Seconded on that video, it's cheesy but very straightforward and informative.
While an interesting idea, I believe most people just call this "gambling".
I'm not sure what you're driving at here. A gambling system where everybody has a net expected gain is still a good use of randomness.
A human running quicksort with certain expectations about its performance might require a particular distribution, but that's not a characteristic of software.
I think this may be a distinction without a difference; modularity can also be defined as human expectations about software, namely that the software will be relatively easy to hook into a larger system.
That might be a distinction without a difference; my preferences come partly from my instincts.
Taboo "faith", what do you mean specifically by that term?