91–100 of 227 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And governments don’t face bad incentives that would cause them to hide information?
They do. Often for different kinds of things. It’s not “government good, private bad” or the other way around. Both are facile views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring the guy who's there now. How accountable is the president really, especially in their second term. And do consider that the supreme court has ruled that they're immune for anything that's an 'official act'. Accountability of the executive left the room in 2024
Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy. And I don’t think that’s wrong. But let’s clarify. Either we trust the process to elect leaders who actually hold power or we think voting is broken and we need a body of leadership which exists independently of the democratic process.
No that's not what I said. The courts can hold someone in the executive branch accountable. They're the check on their power.
Except the president, because of that one ruling.
So if the president commits fraud as part of an official act he's immune? No other person in the executive branch has this immunity. And it was given to the most powerful person.
I'm glad someone managed to save the data that we all payed for. My question is, how will this site stay relevant? The collection/analysis/monitoring of the current situation is as important as historic data. Turning current data into historical data takes significant resources.
You want data? https://www.noaa.gov/data or https://api.weather.gov/ or https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data are a good place to start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't seem controversial to me. I wish the same were true of all federal organizations though. For example, CIA regulates itself with its own supervision too. Other orgs do it too. I don't think they do it well.
> CIA regulates itself with its own supervision too That's not true lol. There is a gigantic supervisory apparatus constantly breathing down the IC's neck, including but not limited to your very own elected Congressperson's investigative powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes! We could pool our efforts though, in a larger organization (let's call it a democratic republic), vote on who should preside over it, be on the "board" and hire some people to run the day-to operations of the whole thing. If a single organization proves too unwieldy, we could even have a federated solution. Edit: another suggestion https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=48898415&goto=item%3Fi...
This is the American way. The end result? Judges being elected that nobody knows. Some even running unopposed. Yet, they all are 'elected'. No. I don't think Americans can elect more people. I would be shocked if over 10% formed their own opinion on which judge to pick for example. If you're lucky they did that for the ballot measures...
I think this falls under "least worst option". I confess that I (and most others) don't have the time or focus to properly evaluate judicial candidates, so I turn to "trusted resources" to help guide my vote.
It's easier to vote on higher level issues, like ballot propositions or state/federal representation.
That said, the fact that a significant portion of the voting public voted in a man who epitomizes the most unqualified and inappropriate person into the US presidency has shaken my faith in democracy.
I'm glad someone managed to save the data that we all payed for. My question is, how will this site stay relevant? The collection/analysis/monitoring of the current situation is as important as historic data. Turning current data into historical data takes significant resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's not accurate?
From my understanding of USA as a foreigner, tax dollars are for corporate bailouts and military.
Is it feasible?
Should we push for this default?
First obvious objection is that lots of government services need backend and dynamic content, but let's say this requirement only goes for static content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy. And I don’t think that’s wrong. But let’s clarify. Either we trust the process to elect leaders who actually hold power or we think voting is broken and we need a body of leadership which exists independently of the democratic process.
> Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy. No that's not what I said. The courts can hold someone in the executive branch accountable. They're the check on their power. Except the president, because of that one ruling. So if the president commits fraud as part of an official act he's immune? No other person in the executive…
The specific ruling is about the president being immune from criminal charges while in office. And yeah, you can’t be taking George Washington to court (or jail) while he is leading the revolution. It’s essential for the nation to have a functioning leader, especially among the fog of war.
The Bible story of David and Saul presents another example of this principle.
To bring it back though… what you’re telling me is we can’t trust a democracy to elect an executive.