rubberstamp

Reckless behaviour should not be rewarded. If a company runs itself to the ground, its entirely on them. Otherwise government should also bailout everyone from big companies to small mom and pop stores.

Problem is that is bailout with taxpayer money that benefits recklessness by private companies. Nationalising or winding down is a loss for executives who ran the company to the ground. Bailout is not a loss for executives that ran company to the ground. Don't reward reckless executives with financial stability.

I beg to differ. It is very easy if you know language decently. The limiting factor is not language but the understanding of what the law maker is trying to achieve. An analogue would be a good programmer and a bad programmer. Give them both same task description. Good competent programmer will most likely program exactly what the program needs to do and never breaks even for edge cases. Bad programmer on the other hand will most likely write a program that doesn't work accurately. The good programmer understood the objective. Every law can be written in easy to understand language and if the law is well written then it won't be vague.

May be start attaching dictionary too as an appendix to law so that words are not interpreted the wrong way. Not having to explain meaning used to be common sense before double speak. But I guess now we need to idiot proof laws.

I will take that as a complement. I don't believe in building stale systems that can drift into corrupt forms of democracy. Where is the proper discourse and philosophy that is necessary in usa's democracy? Continuous feedback loop and active political discourse that are not controlled or hijacked via media narratives are some of the fundamental aspects of healthy democracy. When you analyse usa from first principles, its bad. At the same time I am extremely happy that some real democratic countries exist in the world even if I am not a direct beneficiary.

You wrote "All laws are interpreted". If I put an asterisk on "interpreted" that can change the meaning you actually intended. Laws should not be interpreted. People need to learn how to properly use words with its actual meaning and write laws that are non-ambigous. Its not hard or impossible to write proper law in simple and easy to understand way. Feel free to interpret any law with its original meaning of the word and sentence structure. If it leaves room for interpretation, it is a vague law and not a good law.

There are also countries that are real democratic countries that are older than usa. They have not been corrupted like usa, because they have proper discourse and discussions by its citizens, which doesn't happen in usa. Even usa can be reformed to be a proper democratic country within 1 or 2 years or even as short as 6 months, if proper consensus can be formed by people. Institutions doesn't matter as much as people and real democracy isn't hard to implement if there is political will for it. Current usa is an anti-example of what a democracy should not be.

Democracy itself is young concept. So there is no point looking beyond a certain time period as they were all monarchies before that. However even during earlier times there are examples of democracy like monarchies where citizens were not ignored by monarch, and they ruled for the people.

Democracies that are real democracy also exists and they don't have systemic corruption such as hiding behind complexity or interpretations or misinterpretations, or repeatedly pushing to pass draconian laws. Number of real democratic sovereign countries can be easily counted in one hand and may be it can extend upto two hands. Countries with monarch who has any power are not exactly democratic, uk for example even though it has democracy like parliament. Transparency and real oversight by citizens is required in a democracy. What if representatives make draconian laws? People need to be able to veto it. What if representatives refuse to make a law people want? They need to be able to make it directly. Systems can be designed to make these happen regardless of the size of the country or its population count.

Usa is functioning in a way that is not how it is supposed to function in a democracy. There should not be anything hidden from any elected representatives as long as they are a citizen.

Civil law based systems are a more sane alternative to common law based system that relies on precedents. Law should be discussed in legislature and legislature must oversee and fix the law appropriately rather than make vague laws and leaving it to judges or others for interpretation. Due to not relying on precedents, the law is also easy to understand and apply and follow and enforce in civil law based systems. Cases also takes less time overall compared to common law based justice system.

Elected representatives are the authors or developers of law. Everyone else is users of law. Users cannot be allowed to change interpretation of law as anything other than how it is written.

Law made for horses and then vehicles got invented and law needs more clarity? Ask legislature to discuss and add new law for vehicles or modify existing law to also handle vehicles.

Usa is a common law based system where court judgements also serve as precedent rulings. It is more or less regarded as law even though its not passed by parliament/legislature.

There is another system, civil law based systems where law is passed by parliament and doesn't depend on any court precedents or court interpretation.

Might as well have just courts and call it as adaptive system instead of acknowledging that is isn't a good enough system. Europe has done better in this regard. Checks and balances hardly works in usa. Plenty of news on subverting various constitutional guarantees is example that it failed to work.

Proper democracy needs properly functioning non-lazy legislature. Making vague laws and calling it a day and leaving it for judges and lawyers to interpret based on whichever way the wind is blowing isn't democracy.

Legislature can also work 40 hours a week. Things can be more functional rather than dysfunctional. Active democracy and direct democracy where people can veto laws if necessary, in case representatives collude to pass draconian laws, would be the best kind of democracy. Only that can prevent erosion of rights.

You are assuming they are trying to do the best for citizens or best to abide by the constitution. They are not. In fact they actively try to side step the laws and constitution, and have these kind of secret interpretations ready. Would also like to remind you that no democratic country would allow smuggling of drugs by its own government apparatus but the usa has done that, so the drug epidemic isn't that shocking outcome.

Any government side stepping law by interpreting law in any different manner than how it is written is breaking that law. In my opinion laws should not be interpreted at all and parliament should make any bug fixes rather than allowing courts or administration to interpret laws in any other way other than how its written down in the law.

Read it as classified misinterpretation of laws, so that they can do illegal things and claim this loophole when caught.

Usa has constitution and its government more or less side steps it in many things. Might as well have no constitution. Usa is a jungle for practical intends and purposes compared to europe or any functional democracy. This is the problem with allowing interpretation of law rather than taking law as it is written. Someone somewhere can interpret it in completely twisted way and throw away the spirit of the law.

Absolutely correct. Parent comment is taking something valid in physical information broadcast context and trying to apply it to something non related. Its like taking theory of how electricity works and trying to explain rockets with it.

Judicial review is below parliamentary supremacy. Judicial review can be easily corrupted and relies on a few persons. Parliamentary supremacy on the other hand cannot be easily side stepped as more members needs to be corrupt to do corrupt things. Swiss type cantons/districts and direct democracy by people is much more stable system.

Surveillance of communications of private chats is never okay. Law enforcement can access chats via device directly from the arrested person if necessary. Backdoors via service providers is bad idea. Democratic countries, you know the so called "government rule of the people" doing this or pushing for this is deeply anti-democratic. Non-democratic countries and monarchies obviously has fickle laws that can change at any moment and one cannot expect "democracy" from them. For me democracy means inclusive of all citizens, considerate of every citizen and citizens not having to worry about sneaky laws trampling upon privacy or rights. Democratic governments making mass surveillance laws or making deals with foreign governments to side step constitutional rights and privacy is wrong on a different order of magnitude. Providing security for nation doesn't require mass surveillance. Decent physical non-overreaching policing on the ground is all that is necessary for decent acceptable level of security.

It works only to a point and only if the product has not degraded/enshittified. Retention is often terrible for bad products/service. Humans are not robots. Most people think about what they are purchasing and no amount of ads can fix it if the product/service is bad.

Yes there is a subconscious part but we can also do deliberate shopping, by buying only from whitelisted sources and whitelisted brands who have earned my trust. Before 30 I never used to consider things like this but after a certain age almost everyone is picky and filters with their own biases too. Anti-ad bias or an anti-product bias is not going to be overridden subconsciously by watching an ad for that product, unless the product is actually good product.

Yes, somehow moral, ethics and fairness aspects are absent in many laws. In my opinion a constitutional law needs to be there to mandatorily list what each particular law is trying to achieve as its objective. Then people should be allowed to list any unfairness or ethical or moral concerns about each law, which is also recorded as a journal entry.

Democractic laws needs a guiding framework that considers these moral and ethical aspects, as these kind of things can be easily missed or overlooked if not documented as a mandatory tests for legality of law. Otherwise people have to constantly be on the lookout for sneaky laws that takes away the core values that may not be immediately apparent. Laws should be entirely written and modified only be legislature, and courts cannot be allowed to interpret it in any different way or apply it out of context or allowed to edit or delete laws, which is what legislative body is for.

Did the delivery work functionally as expected? If yes, then they understood what they need to understand to do that work on code. You don't need to understand the whole codebase, just the parts relevant to the work at hand.

Not AI/LLM. A secure voting web app where verified voters can make proposals to create/amend/withdraw a law, vote on it and legislate without the middleman known as "representatives". The case for representatives have been that it is not practical for everyone to vote to make laws and that it only works in small scales. With internet and secure application, large scale voting and consensus is now feasible. Direct democracy better than indirect democracy. I like the swiss canton style direct democracy.

Gerrymandering is blatantly unethical. Its cherry picking their own votes for next election by including certain areas while excluding certain other areas to obtain maximum votes for themselves by redrawing constituency map.

Lobbying purely via transparent talks is ok. Lobbying that has any kind of quid pro quo that pays money or some alternative arrangement now or in future in exchange for the representatives backing a position is corruption.

Transparent talks is the key part. Without transparent talk how do you know if your representative is doing corruption behind your back? Representatives are elected in democracy to represent the interests of people of their constituency. Technically, since now technology has grown enough for each person to represent themselves, we really don't need representatives anymore in order to do democracy. We would still need some people to form government, which is different from representative in legislature.

Also those big projects might not have made billions for those who invented it, but it did enable many others make billions standing on shoulder of those giants. They created trillion dollar computing and associated software market.

gyrocopters are light weight and can takeoff and land in small patch of land.

A better name would've been TakeNoBullshit award. Because that is what which rots the world and Aaron tried to fight it to save others from being subjected to the same bullshit.

Like 2muchcoffeeman commented:

>>The award is clearly for people who are being disobedient for the benefit of society. Breaking rules for the sake of breaking rules is just anarchy or trolling. You're just inconveniencing people who set out to recognise real contributions to society.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13848430

Should I take acid to be able to write like you? Its so hilarious

Was he making as much as an American? Also did he get huge bonus for the excellent work he did?

Try manjaro kde. It has pretty good auto detection and configuration for hardware. Looks like ubuntu messed up release 16 and it rears its ugly head on many ububtu based os. It feels so brittle. Debian based netrunner kde is also nice but I like manjaro better for its excellent ux.

Chemical weapon or not doesn't matter. US has committed plenty of war crimes and have killed millions, most of them not even an immediate or future threat to US.