7 ms·

There are lots of reasons to oppose this bill; why assume climate change is the only reason? And if it's fair to assume the opposition is to the portion of thes

There are lots of reasons to oppose this bill; why assume climate change is the only reason? And if it's fair to assume the opposition is to the portion of these taxes and regulations meant to address climate change, why assume the opposition is to efforts to remediate climate change writ large when the opposition might just be to these specific measures? Also, why is explicitly political stuff, let alone badly written political stuff, of particular interest to the people who read hacker news? Is it a pun on hack journalism? If so, well. I get it. Kinda.

nvr219 5y ago
What makes this badly written?
- acomjean 5y ago
  The bill doesn’t yet exist. It’s currently being negotiated because of the slim majority Democrats have in the US it needs centrists and liberal factions of the party to agree, which you’d think would be easy… but in a strange political way they’re trying to throwing everything into one bill (childcare/ healthcare/ environment ).
- fdschoeneman 5y ago
  Unsupported premises. Assumptions. Good writing should help us see things we didn't before. This does not.
tlear 5y ago
The current talking points I assume. The zero cost joke did not work so this the new spiel? It is amazing that these primitive propaganda tricks work on so many otherwise smart people here.
squabble 5y ago
Why do they put many unrelated things in the same bill? Smaller, independent pull requests seems like a better way.
- rkuykendall-com 5y ago
  Actual answer: Because the code management system is built with certain merge restrictions: - A PR can be merged with 50 or more code reviews and approvals if it has 0 rejections - If there are any rejections, the requirement is a little more intense, at 60 or more code reviews and approvals - Once per year, one PR can be merged per year with 50 code-review approvals and any number of rejections. - The company has 100 developers and at least 41 will reject every single PR summited for review - It takes agreement of 50 developers to change the merge rules, and there are 48 or fewer who want to do so This is why there are so many unrelated changes in one PR. It's probably the only one they will be able to merge this year.
  - squabble 5y ago
    Other than the once per year point, these all seem like reasons to make smaller PR's.

nvr219 5y ago

What makes this badly written?

acomjean 5y ago
The bill doesn’t yet exist. It’s currently being negotiated because of the slim majority Democrats have in the US it needs centrists and liberal factions of the party to agree, which you’d think would be easy… but in a strange political way they’re trying to throwing everything into one bill (childcare/ healthcare/ environment ).
fdschoeneman 5y ago
Unsupported premises. Assumptions. Good writing should help us see things we didn't before. This does not.

tlear 5y ago

The current talking points I assume. The zero cost joke did not work so this the new spiel? It is amazing that these primitive propaganda tricks work on so many otherwise smart people here.

squabble 5y ago

Why do they put many unrelated things in the same bill? Smaller, independent pull requests seems like a better way.

rkuykendall-com 5y ago
Actual answer: Because the code management system is built with certain merge restrictions: - A PR can be merged with 50 or more code reviews and approvals if it has 0 rejections - If there are any rejections, the requirement is a little more intense, at 60 or more code reviews and approvals - Once per year, one PR can be merged per year with 50 code-review approvals and any number of rejections. - The company has 100 developers and at least 41 will reject every single PR summited for review - It takes agreement of 50 developers to change the merge rules, and there are 48 or fewer who want to do so This is why there are so many unrelated changes in one PR. It's probably the only one they will be able to merge this year.
- squabble 5y ago
  Other than the once per year point, these all seem like reasons to make smaller PR's.