> Any "limit in practice" is not a prescribed limit.
I don't understand the point of stating the blindingly obvious as though it could serve as a useful retort. Obviously there isn't a prescribed limit. That doesn't elide the point—a limit doesn't need to be a bright line in order to exist in practice.
I don't understand the point of stating the blindingly obvious as though it could serve as a useful retort. Obviously there isn't a prescribed limit. That doesn't elide the point—a limit doesn't need to be a bright line in order to exist in practice.