The same might be said of electorates in representative democracies. How do you distinguish?

the representative voters in a representative democracy are equally deficient and in opposition to a direct democracy, are additionally gamed by PR campaigns that create an artificial partitioning of mental share (mindshare) of brands (political parties). However the persons voting the actual laws, while demagogous and victim of monetary conflict of interests, are humans that are paid to study proposed laws or to propose laws and then to deliberate together. While those people are extremelly deficient, the mere quality of being full time paid is still transcendant over the layman mental abilities in government optimization, while however extremely insufficient in comparison to the utopia a science/evidence based government would create.

Do you consider the above to be beliefs or knowledge?

Do you think being paid causes people to automatically make such important distinctions, consistently and without error?

> when the spec is inherently broken an impl can't do shit.

Is your premise correct?

Is the conclusion even correct?

I feel like you're speaking colloquially.

> Don't you realize the absurdity of deffering the decisions of multi-domain highly technical topics to laymans that have an attention span of 3 milliseconds and a remarkable lack of erudition and critical thinking?

I believe I do, to a substantial degree. And yourself?

Do you realize the absurdity (and the consequences) of assigning this responsibility to who we currently assign it to?

> Epistemology isn't even taught in schools, the joke is at its peak

Here I partially agree, but I think you lack imagination - I think the joke is just getting warmed up (pun intentional).