A kind of leaky abstraction. A property of the chosen representation, irrelevant to your problem, leaks to the user who interprets it.

Socrates etc.

Sure this is the kind of question for which you can rely on an expert.

But you don’t need to be an expert in TVs to decide whether you should buy a TV in the first place.

That’s what I meant by different ways of knowing.

I think we can and need both. Scientists/experts that are aware of the social impact of their work and a public who is literate enough to form opinions.

There is not just one way of knowing a particular subject in my opinion.

"3) To describe a circle with any centre and distance."

The third postulate lets you change the orientation of a line segment without changing its magnitude.

"2) To produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line."

The second postulate lets you change the magnitude of a line segment without changing its orientation.

"1) To draw a straight line from any point to any point."

The first postulate lets you create arbitrary line segments because you have to start somewhere.

Teams have a lot of freedom so this is not how all teams work (thankfully).

Isn’t that sad? But yes, I’ve seen those things even at Stripe last year :(

Unfortunately most PRDs I have seen are at a very detailed level of design (basically every time you have a mockup) and you know that’s the author could not have consciously made all the design decisions to go down at this level.

One of the culprits of those “undesigns” is often the Product Requirement Document which basically force you to unconsciously design the whole thing to be able to write at the level of detail expected by the stakeholders.