5 ms·

I have been dreaming about a government system of laws that uses open source version control with a github-like ui, maybe even a constitution. If I had my own c

I have been dreaming about a government system of laws that uses open source version control with a github-like ui, maybe even a constitution. If I had my own country, that's how I would do it.

dymk 7y ago
I think as long as we base the kernel of the Government on Rust (for a fearlessly concurrent Government), we'll be in the clear. Also protects against terrorist memory tampering. Congress could submit new laws to Blockchain to combat tampering and ensure proof-of-work. My startup is working on Artificial Intelligence to predict laws that model cities like San Francisco or New York would want to implement in the face of acute social woes, so if Government 2.0 could provide a RESTful Lobbying API, that'd let the People move fast.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Bit of an old joke, no? I think the "descent to the absurd" style here doesn't make sense because there is a concrete reason for what he's saying: lowering the barrier to suggesting changes in laws in a more structured form. You could point to the diff and talk about it. Worthwhile, I think.
  - dymk 7y ago
    Absurd? I'm just as serious about what I'm proposing, as I am about a "Github-like UI" for the foundations of our country.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      You're just being silly now. No one's saying "merge the PR to change abortion laws". They're talking about tooling to look at proposed differences clearly. It doesn't seem absurd to me to have a diff, watch that evolve as new versions are proposed by people, and then finally watch what goes in. Obviously ground truth is still in the books, with laws debated in parliament or congress or whatever, but this acts as a shadow tracking that movement. Even if the act of passing were to end with a merge in of whatever law is debated, that's still hardly troublesome. It only increases transparency and doesn't remove any checks or balances. Bit hysterical of a reaction for a rather minor request, in my opinion.
      - dymk 7y ago
        You were able to discern a lot more detail from "Github-like UI" than I was, so kudos to you! I guess I'm just bad at reading into really presumptuous details like that when they're not there. Interesting that you're calling me silly or hysterical for simply proposing a fearlessly concurrent Government built on Blockchain technology. After all, we're going for Woke Government 2.technotopia, not Broke Government 1.capitolhill.
Hoeraun 7y ago
Washington DC actually does use Github as the source for the city's legal code (and not just as a copy). I remember seeing this article on HN a while back: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-th...
jon-wood 7y ago
I have hunch that with the right NLP you could probably do this, at least in the UK. Every now and then I've looked at proposed alterations to acts of parliament and they've mostly been in a format like "In section 3a, paragaph 4, replace 'carrying a maximum sentence of 3 years' with 'carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years, and a sign in the town square telling everyone you're a bad person'".

I have been dreaming about a government system of laws that uses open source version control with a github-like ui, maybe even a constitution. If I had my own country, that's how I would do it.

dymk 7y ago

I think as long as we base the kernel of the Government on Rust (for a fearlessly concurrent Government), we'll be in the clear. Also protects against terrorist memory tampering. Congress could submit new laws to Blockchain to combat tampering and ensure proof-of-work. My startup is working on Artificial Intelligence to predict laws that model cities like San Francisco or New York would want to implement in the face of acute social woes, so if Government 2.0 could provide a RESTful Lobbying API, that'd let the People move fast.

scarejunba 7y ago
Bit of an old joke, no? I think the "descent to the absurd" style here doesn't make sense because there is a concrete reason for what he's saying: lowering the barrier to suggesting changes in laws in a more structured form. You could point to the diff and talk about it. Worthwhile, I think.
- dymk 7y ago
  Absurd? I'm just as serious about what I'm proposing, as I am about a "Github-like UI" for the foundations of our country.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    You're just being silly now. No one's saying "merge the PR to change abortion laws". They're talking about tooling to look at proposed differences clearly. It doesn't seem absurd to me to have a diff, watch that evolve as new versions are proposed by people, and then finally watch what goes in. Obviously ground truth is still in the books, with laws debated in parliament or congress or whatever, but this acts as a shadow tracking that movement. Even if the act of passing were to end with a merge in of whatever law is debated, that's still hardly troublesome. It only increases transparency and doesn't remove any checks or balances. Bit hysterical of a reaction for a rather minor request, in my opinion.
    - dymk 7y ago
      You were able to discern a lot more detail from "Github-like UI" than I was, so kudos to you! I guess I'm just bad at reading into really presumptuous details like that when they're not there. Interesting that you're calling me silly or hysterical for simply proposing a fearlessly concurrent Government built on Blockchain technology. After all, we're going for Woke Government 2.technotopia, not Broke Government 1.capitolhill.

Hoeraun 7y ago

Washington DC actually does use Github as the source for the city's legal code (and not just as a copy). I remember seeing this article on HN a while back: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-the-law-with-a-github-pull-request/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/how-i-changed-th...

jon-wood 7y ago

I have hunch that with the right NLP you could probably do this, at least in the UK. Every now and then I've looked at proposed alterations to acts of parliament and they've mostly been in a format like "In section 3a, paragaph 4, replace 'carrying a maximum sentence of 3 years' with 'carrying a maximum sentence of 5 years, and a sign in the town square telling everyone you're a bad person'".