4 ms·

Even with git, that is not the way it would happen. The people working on the bills are smarter than that. It is trivial to commit someone else’s patch as your

Even with git, that is not the way it would happen. The people working on the bills are smarter than that. It is trivial to commit someone else’s patch as your own and without any history if you want to write the script. Just not that hard.

raisedbyninjas 5y ago
Even if the changed was committed by @OfficialComcast, a significant contingent of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires would accept this as the best course of action. After all those captains of industry are experts and probably shouldn't be questioned.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  Captain of industry is an ironic name: a captain is typically someone that has been placed in authority by even higher powers, that's not typically how industry leaders like to describe their ascent.
  - manquer 5y ago
    Captian comes from the Byzantine latin word Katepano, while it can mean "placed at the top", there is no implications of higher authority placing them. Usual interpretations are that the person facually at the top how he got there is not really a factor. Somewhat akin to saying "boss" today.
  - quantified 5y ago
    Surprised by your downvotes. Getting into the club is a very social activity usually.
briffle 5y ago
Even that would be fine, we would still see that Representative Smith inserted the language into the bill. Its the person that has merge permissions into the main branch that has the accountability
- catblast01 5y ago
  This solves what, exactly? We already know bill sponsors, the provenance of bills is generally not a problem in the US. All the regulatory capture and pork usually happens in the open already.
elliekelly 5y ago
I’d be less concerned with elected officials taking credit for “good” legislative language they didn’t actually draft and more concerned with a “language laundering” of sorts. By that I mean situations where the “bad” legislative language couldn’t be easily attributed to any specific elected official’s office because they’ve colluded to make successive, small, innocuous changes that, when taken together, turned in to “bad” language but it’s not easy to pinpoint which change, exactly, made the draft “bad”.

raisedbyninjas 5y ago

Even if the changed was committed by @OfficialComcast, a significant contingent of the temporarily embarrassed millionaires would accept this as the best course of action. After all those captains of industry are experts and probably shouldn't be questioned.

SiempreViernes 5y ago
Captain of industry is an ironic name: a captain is typically someone that has been placed in authority by even higher powers, that's not typically how industry leaders like to describe their ascent.
- manquer 5y ago
  Captian comes from the Byzantine latin word Katepano, while it can mean "placed at the top", there is no implications of higher authority placing them. Usual interpretations are that the person facually at the top how he got there is not really a factor. Somewhat akin to saying "boss" today.
- quantified 5y ago
  Surprised by your downvotes. Getting into the club is a very social activity usually.

briffle 5y ago

Even that would be fine, we would still see that Representative Smith inserted the language into the bill. Its the person that has merge permissions into the main branch that has the accountability

catblast01 5y ago
This solves what, exactly? We already know bill sponsors, the provenance of bills is generally not a problem in the US. All the regulatory capture and pork usually happens in the open already.

elliekelly 5y ago

I’d be less concerned with elected officials taking credit for “good” legislative language they didn’t actually draft and more concerned with a “language laundering” of sorts. By that I mean situations where the “bad” legislative language couldn’t be easily attributed to any specific elected official’s office because they’ve colluded to make successive, small, innocuous changes that, when taken together, turned in to “bad” language but it’s not easy to pinpoint which change, exactly, made the draft “bad”.