101–110 of 129 posts
[flagged]
Which one isn't real? https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/fire...
#144117 on page 30 -- "AR15.com" "ARFCOM"
That's a website and the company registered under that name does not have an FFL to manufacture firearms. There is no such firearm.
[flagged]
The claim that Canada banned firearms “that only appear in video games” is a popular internet talking point, but I couldn’t find evidence supporting it in the official Canadian firearms ban lists. What actually happened: 1. The Government of Canada has banned more than 2,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms since May 2020. 2. The 2020 Order in Council (OIC) banned approximately 1,500 firearms by name, expan…
https://rcmp.ca/sites/default/files/dam/pfl-1229-a.pdf
#144117 on page 30 -- "AR15.com" "ARFCOM" listed as a 5.56mm semi-auto rifle.
That's a website. There is no such firearm, and arf15.com an American run organization does not hold a manufacturer FFL. Arfcom is a common short name for the message board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems
> Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems What systems are you thinking of? I’ve provided private feedback on state and federal bills. I was, myself, soliciting feedback from friends and acquaintances. In some cases, that was a back and forth over text. Sometimes it was redlines. I consolidated that into an email that was sometimes a redline, sometimes a strike-this-add-that. If…
(Even if you disagree with the idea being implemented, that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nothing you write here is not compatible with regular version control systems What systems are you thinking of? I’ve provided private feedback on state and federal bills. I was, myself, soliciting feedback from friends and acquaintances. In some cases, that was a back and forth over text. Sometimes it was redlines. I consolidated that into an email that was sometimes a redline, sometimes a strike-this-add-that. If…
Of course doing things off the record is going to result in there being no record. What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread. (Even if you disagree with the idea being implemented, that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented.)
Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git. I'm literally saying I think this law has this problem, and then I'm being asked to fix it. So I try to fix it, collecting the input I need to so, and then send back my recommendation. This simply isn't a flow that survives being overly formalised.
> that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented
I'm not pretending, I literally don't see it. We already have official committee versions, et cetera. What are you going to do, make it a prosecutable offense for two staffers to discuss a bill over coffee?
The top of this thread claims it's difficult to impossible to determine who made these contributions to this North Dakota bill. Maybe it is. I don't know enough about their legislative process to refute that. But I'm going to guess it probably isn't, at least to the point that you can figure out which LegCo version first contained these fake minerals, and who submitted that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t want to pick on you specifically, because this is just one example of a very common pathology, but this is such an “HN-brained” comment. “They didn’t use version control” is ten million miles from the real problem here, and adopting version control would improve literally nothing about this situation.
I deliberately didn't say version control (which would imply git or similar, and we know they're not going to learn that). I said version tracking. They use word processors to write the things, they could at least learn to turn on "track changes". I genuinely do believe that a law that says "all laws must be able to show author tracking on a per-line basis" would improve democracy. Convince me otherwise!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's one: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589... Go to https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71191591/abrego-garcia-... and search "proposed order." You will find like 20+ of them, they are basically complete orders where they wrote the judge name and everything, just left the signature blank.
I see the proposed orders, but when I try to find the judge's order exactly copying the proposed order I'm not seeing it. I could be blind. For example, here's the proposed order to strike [1], and here is the Judge's order granting that strike [2] It's definitely ignorance on my part. I didn't realize the motions filed by a party ultimately took the form of unsigned orders. [1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7…
You'll have to sift through them because it happens some of the time not all of the time. The example I gave was how they did it, if you wanted a 1:1 example in that case of the judge just signing off verbatim below ought to fit:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589...
and
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.589...
look identical to me, and if not damn near it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course doing things off the record is going to result in there being no record. What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread. (Even if you disagree with the idea being implemented, that's different from pretending not to understand how it would work if it were implemented.)
> What the other commenters are discussing is doing it on the record. That's the whole point of the thread Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git. I'm literally saying I think this law has this problem, and then I'm being asked to fix it. So I try to fix it, collecting the input I need to so, and then send back my recommendation. This simply i…
If someone takes your recommended draft and then records in a ledger somewhere which draft revision(s) you were working with to prepare your draft/proposed changes, and they store copies of all these drafts, then that's version control. It doesn't have to be Git (though, as the other commenter said, there's nothing mentioned so far that's incompatible with it), nor Mercurial, SVN, Perforce, or any other other existing version control system you've heard of, and you wouldn't have to be personally operating any of the clients that actually operate on the VCS's data model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure this is true. I've payed attention to a few high profile cases and I've not seen anything like that come up. The closest I can think of is when jury instructions are issued. But in that, the two sides ultimately work with the court to hammer out the details of how those instructions should look. And often, they are based on a more or less standard template with minor revisions.
I was watching the Abrego Garcia case. It was done routinely by Garcia's lawyer. They would write an order for the judge to sign then ask them to sign it.
So... does it mean that nobody reads the law? Is it good or bad? What is the takeaway?
> does it mean that nobody reads the law? It means every lawmaker isn’t a geologist. That’s fine. It also means there clearly wasn’t enough public input from geologists that someone would have noticed a name they’d never seen in a group they were familiar with.