5 ms·

Good use case for a git diff. The removed bits discuss habeaus corpus, emoluments, and congressional oversight of the military.

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible. I don't think it's since been fixed. I had went so far as to start digging up treaties (about 700 of them, ratified) and draft constitutions (would have been non-master branches of some sort). It would be nice if Congress and legislatures actually used git as a matter of law, having names attached to every commit and so on. The way they handle repeals is absurd...
- OtherShrezzing 1y ago
  I don't really think Git is the appropriate tool for version control on legislation. There's hundreds of thousands of actions/conversations/motions on each "commit" to a nation's legislation, and all of those actions need to be tracked permanently. Moreover, most countries have an "append-only" approach to legislation, where the original document doesn't get removed, but overridden by the new. Look at the UK's Hansard[0] as an example. Every word spoken in Parliament leading up to legislation being introduced is tracked and published. Those conversations eventually turn into Bills on the Parliament site[1], and eventually those bills turn into legislation[2]. These websites are all digital versions of the old paper copies which go back centuries. [0] - https://hansard.parliament.uk https://hansard.parliament.uk [1] - https://bills.parliament.uk https://bills.parliament.uk [2] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    >Moreover, most countries have an "append-only" approach to legislation, where the original document doesn't get removed, but overridden by the new. One of it's biggest flaws, actually. Completely understandable, of course, they were working on paper... weren't any reasonable alternatives. >Look at the UK's Hansard[0] as an example. Every word spoken in Parliament leading up to legislation being introduced is tracked and published. Those conversations eventually turn into Bills on the Parliament site[1], and eventually those bills turn into legislation I'm ignorant of how things work in the UK's Parliament. But somehow this all seems doubtful. In the US, legislation isn't drafted in such a manner at all.
  - MagnumOpus 1y ago
    In my opinion that is a bug with the format of laws and legislation in the UK and especially the US though. Laws in countries with codified Napoleonic legal tradition have no problems changing the text of the laws on the book. Yes, tracking the parliamentary debate and proposals would be messy, but tracking the changes in the articles of the law isn’t. This is a simple GitHub version of the German constitution for instance (picking an article that actually has been amended, here the one about the military draft and conscription): https://github.com/c3e/grundgesetz/blame/master/012a.md https://github.com/c3e/grundgesetz/blame/master/012a.md
- tzs 1y ago
  > I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible Perhaps add a fixed offset to dates to bring them past the Unix epoch?
- compiler-guy 1y ago
  Version control in some form? Yes, absolutely. Git? No way. The needs and customs of a lawmaking body are vastly different than the needs of engineers.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    So you assert, without providing even a single example.
    - compiler-guy 1y ago
      I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development and doesn't even normally use text-files would be able to make a better case than this. You don't provide a single example either. But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to conform to Linus's idea of a good product.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
        >I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development Laws consist of strings of characters in a particular sequence, occasionally you don't want to be additive but subtractive, and these sequences are grouped into multiple papers. It's just code. Code on paper, but code nonetheless. They can't easily check what the previous version was, or compare two or more different branches. Lots of strike-throughs and other such crap. Many of the defects in legislation and the legislative process itself stem from how they try (so desperately) to keep it from being like code. Trying to hide who edited what and when. Fuck, Congress has this big long drawn out process for reconciling two slightly different versions of the same piece of code... with every single act. You've simply never considered this. >But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to I wasn't changing any workflows. I was just going to dump existing legislation into a repo so I could see what it would look like. Not sure what you're reading into this. You're stomping on an experiment that someone was going to run for free in a way that didn't interfere with you and ridiculing the idea in casual conversation. >and doesn't even normally use text-files It's text. On a "file" (which is what we called bundles of associated paper back before computer filesystems, they'd put them in a filing cabinet).
captainkrtek 1y ago
Just some minor things /s
- CalRobert 1y ago
  git commit -m ‘Just a readme update no review needed’
  - danudey 1y ago
    didn't read it but lgtm
verbify 1y ago
Here's a diff: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250109165127/20250806023110/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250109165127/202508060231...
ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
They removed the part about providing for a Navy! Trump must be trying to abolish the whole Navy for his personal gain!
- andrewla 1y ago
  They also removed the parts that said that states can't have navies and can't declare war on other countries. All part of Trump's plan!
- xracy 1y ago
  He must also be trying to suspend Habeas Corpus and the Emoluments for personal gain! We can likely agree that some of this is an accident, but what we won't agree on is how much given that some of the removal is distinctly useful for this administration. But yeah "haha, the US government has become so incompetent + evil we can't tell what's an accident and what's malicious!"

NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago

I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible. I don't think it's since been fixed. I had went so far as to start digging up treaties (about 700 of them, ratified) and draft constitutions (would have been non-master branches of some sort). It would be nice if Congress and legislatures actually used git as a matter of law, having names attached to every commit and so on. The way they handle repeals is absurd...

OtherShrezzing 1y ago
I don't really think Git is the appropriate tool for version control on legislation. There's hundreds of thousands of actions/conversations/motions on each "commit" to a nation's legislation, and all of those actions need to be tracked permanently. Moreover, most countries have an "append-only" approach to legislation, where the original document doesn't get removed, but overridden by the new. Look at the UK's Hansard[0] as an example. Every word spoken in Parliament leading up to legislation being introduced is tracked and published. Those conversations eventually turn into Bills on the Parliament site[1], and eventually those bills turn into legislation[2]. These websites are all digital versions of the old paper copies which go back centuries. [0] - https://hansard.parliament.uk https://hansard.parliament.uk [1] - https://bills.parliament.uk https://bills.parliament.uk [2] - https://www.legislation.gov.uk https://www.legislation.gov.uk
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  >Moreover, most countries have an "append-only" approach to legislation, where the original document doesn't get removed, but overridden by the new. One of it's biggest flaws, actually. Completely understandable, of course, they were working on paper... weren't any reasonable alternatives. >Look at the UK's Hansard[0] as an example. Every word spoken in Parliament leading up to legislation being introduced is tracked and published. Those conversations eventually turn into Bills on the Parliament site[1], and eventually those bills turn into legislation I'm ignorant of how things work in the UK's Parliament. But somehow this all seems doubtful. In the US, legislation isn't drafted in such a manner at all.
- MagnumOpus 1y ago
  In my opinion that is a bug with the format of laws and legislation in the UK and especially the US though. Laws in countries with codified Napoleonic legal tradition have no problems changing the text of the laws on the book. Yes, tracking the parliamentary debate and proposals would be messy, but tracking the changes in the articles of the law isn’t. This is a simple GitHub version of the German constitution for instance (picking an article that actually has been amended, here the one about the military draft and conscription): https://github.com/c3e/grundgesetz/blame/master/012a.md https://github.com/c3e/grundgesetz/blame/master/012a.md
tzs 1y ago
> I wanted to do the Constitution (and US law in general) in git, but dates before unix epoch weren't possible Perhaps add a fixed offset to dates to bring them past the Unix epoch?
compiler-guy 1y ago
Version control in some form? Yes, absolutely. Git? No way. The needs and customs of a lawmaking body are vastly different than the needs of engineers.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
  So you assert, without providing even a single example.
  - compiler-guy 1y ago
    I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development and doesn't even normally use text-files would be able to make a better case than this. You don't provide a single example either. But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to conform to Linus's idea of a good product.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
      >I would think that those who claim that git is a good tool for an environment completely unlike software development Laws consist of strings of characters in a particular sequence, occasionally you don't want to be additive but subtractive, and these sequences are grouped into multiple papers. It's just code. Code on paper, but code nonetheless. They can't easily check what the previous version was, or compare two or more different branches. Lots of strike-throughs and other such crap. Many of the defects in legislation and the legislative process itself stem from how they try (so desperately) to keep it from being like code. Trying to hide who edited what and when. Fuck, Congress has this big long drawn out process for reconciling two slightly different versions of the same piece of code... with every single act. You've simply never considered this. >But sure, lets change the entire legislation workflow to I wasn't changing any workflows. I was just going to dump existing legislation into a repo so I could see what it would look like. Not sure what you're reading into this. You're stomping on an experiment that someone was going to run for free in a way that didn't interfere with you and ridiculing the idea in casual conversation. >and doesn't even normally use text-files It's text. On a "file" (which is what we called bundles of associated paper back before computer filesystems, they'd put them in a filing cabinet).

captainkrtek 1y ago

Just some minor things /s

CalRobert 1y ago
git commit -m ‘Just a readme update no review needed’
- danudey 1y ago
  didn't read it but lgtm

verbify 1y ago

Here's a diff: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250109165127/20250806023110/https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/ https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20250109165127/202508060231...

ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago

They removed the part about providing for a Navy! Trump must be trying to abolish the whole Navy for his personal gain!

andrewla 1y ago
They also removed the parts that said that states can't have navies and can't declare war on other countries. All part of Trump's plan!
xracy 1y ago
He must also be trying to suspend Habeas Corpus and the Emoluments for personal gain! We can likely agree that some of this is an accident, but what we won't agree on is how much given that some of the removal is distinctly useful for this administration. But yeah "haha, the US government has become so incompetent + evil we can't tell what's an accident and what's malicious!"