3 ms·
I strongly disagree. As someone above said it's the equivalent of requiring a meeting for every commit when building software. How good do you think congress w
by EricDeb 2y ago
I strongly disagree. As someone above said it's the equivalent of requiring a meeting for every commit when building software. How good do you think congress will be at passing small laws when changes need to be made in federal agencies regulations?
- persnicker 2y agoIf every commit of software had the potential to put someone in prison or ruin their life based on a law that didn't exist though the agency itself interpreted for their own self-interest, I would certainly want a meeting for every commit. Furthermore, it's not "every commit" - it's commits that are questionable or have varying interpretations. Most litigation occurs relating to known laws that has substantial case law relating to it. The edge case situations are the ones that are not accounted for, and they're the far minority of litigation. It's these edge case situations which will require a meeting, and deservedly so. I'm sure you wouldn't be against that, however if you have facts to provide that would show this would be a bad outcome or what I stated would in fact lead to an absurd result, then please go ahead an provide it.
- cryptonector 2y agoNo, Raimondo means only that regulations that would be quite a stretch under the current statutory delegation of power won't stand.