North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names • Hacker News Board

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#111

Post by NewJazz » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 4:43 AM UTC

vpribish wrote: post #97

londons_explore wrote: post #95

I would like to see a nation whose laws are limited to what people can remember. Ie. In a court, a jury makes their decision about if the accused has broken the law simply on their recollection of the law. In turn, this means all rules must necessarily be far simpler and less precise. Lawmakers wouldn't write laws so much as advertise what they think the law should be, and if the population remembered and agreed with…

I would like to opt out of your theocratic ideocracy

Lalala I can't remember agreeing to be governed by you lalala.

It could all be so easy and simple, if you just listen to my plan, the theocratic guide... To idiocracy!

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#112

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 5:46 AM UTC

NewJazz wrote: post #109

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

At least not geologists who don't also work for coal companies.

I’ll go out on a limb and guess that none of the industry groups found this funny. They want to replicate this law in other states. The lawyers who worked on it, on the other hand, only work in North Dakota. And calling a spade a spade, I guess if I needed something in front of that legislature I’d at least know they’re competent and crafty.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#113

Post by georgefrowny » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 6:50 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #53

culi wrote: post #10

It's ridiculous how much of our bills are completely written by interest groups like the coal industry. I'm surprised they even reviewed it enough to catch it In 2010 Arizona passed an anti-immigrant bill written by the private prison company Corrections Corporation of America (now CoreCivic). We know it was written by CCA because they literally left the logo on the bill

There's not many things more "Stereotypically American" than legislation with a corporate logo on it. In the interest of full transparency, it would be nice to stamp all laws with the logos of the companies that write them, so we at least know who our real legislators are for any given law.

Labelling laws are Unamerican and that's why inhibiting other countries from requiring clear food labelling is a clear part of the American trade negotiation platform.

> Establish new and enforceable rules to eliminate unjustified trade restrictions or unjustified commercial requirements (including unjustified labeling) that affect new technologies. https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/Summary_of_U.S.-UK_Nego...

I don't think laws would be much different.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#114

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 6:58 AM UTC

cxr wrote: post #107

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are conflating "version control" with "the way GitHub/whatever works". (I mean, I guess. That's the only way your comments here make sense.) 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…

> 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

I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identified?

Let’s go local. I’m right now working on getting Flock Safety out of my community. Part of that involves co-ordinating with members of vulnerable communities. I’m sure as hell not getting all of them to sign their names to a draft measure. Yet every single one of them have added value to the discussion and project.

This is the reality of negotiation, coalition building and reconciliation. Some of it is untraced for convenience. Some of it is hidden for corrupt purposes. And some of it is secret to give room for honesty and grace.

I have no doubt we could force lawmakers to use version control. I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system. I don’t see that being a step forward. And I don’t see it hampering to any degree the powerful and connected.

(You’ve argued this well, by the way, and I think my position has shifted from it’s impossible to it’s impossible without compromising what makes democracy work.)

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#115

Post by vintermann » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 2:43 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104

cxr wrote: post #103

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…

> Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git

Maybe that workflow is something we want to change.

Either way, if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully, I'm prepared to create a git login.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#116

Post by cxr » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 3:12 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114

cxr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating "version control" with "the way GitHub/whatever works". (I mean, I guess. That's the only way your comments here make sense.) 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…

> 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 I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identi…

> I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identified?

It wouldn't hurt, but it also wouldn't be necessary.

> I’m sure as hell not getting all of them to sign their names to a draft measure. Yet every single one of them have added value to the discussion and project.

"Added value" is not the same as being the author of a draft that gets merged (in whole or in part, and with or without edits by the person who's integrating it).

> I’m sure we could prosecute private citizens and NGOs for not using the sanctioned reporting system.

I don't know what that means. As I said before, if you send your draft (or just the parts that you wish to "patch", i.e. a suggested change) to a public official (no matter what form, e.g. an email, even) who then chooses to integrate your suggestion, and they record both the provenance of the revision and what precisely is being revised, then that would satisfy the conditions of what constitutes version control.

> You’ve argued this well

I don't think so. I see this subthread as being tedious and unnecessary, and there's nothing particularly insightful in the things I've written here. It should have ended with the first commenter who explained that nothing about any of this is incompatible with version control, but it sounds—not just based on the remarks here, but similarly timed comments elsewhere—that you still don't grok what that really means.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#117

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 6:58 PM UTC

cxr wrote: post #116

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identi…

> I’m a private citizen asking friends for their thoughts. One of them fixed the grammar in something wrote years ago. Would those edits need to be copied to a public ledger and identified? It wouldn't hurt, but it also wouldn't be necessary. > I’m sure as hell not getting all of them to sign their names to a draft measure. Yet every single one of them have added value to the discussion and project. "Added value" is…

> "Added value" is not the same as being the author of a draft that gets merged

Merged into what? There is no master draft. Just a bunch of drafts being circulated. I have no idea at what point my comments are submitted into a copy that winds up on the floor for a vote.

More to the point, the author of the draft may have nothing to do with my edits. If we’re skipping that, the entire exercise is performative.

> it sounds—not just based on the remarks here, but similarly timed comments elsewhere—that you still don't grok what that really means

How much language have you drafted that wound up in state or federal law?

This confident naïveté is part of the problem.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#118

Post by JumpCrisscross » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 7:00 PM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #115

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Okay, take the workflow that I presented. I'm a private citizen. I'm not creating a log-in to some government git Maybe that workflow is something we want to change. Either way, if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully, I'm prepared to create a git login.

> if I thought I could actually influence legislation meaningfully

Literally start with calling your representative.

> I'm prepared to create a git login

Easy to say if you’re in society’s mainstream. A lot harder for other folks.

Right now, I’d be worried about Government Git being trawled for anyone who did anything the administration finds objectionable.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#119

Post by throw0101c » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 11:02 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #29

I find the fact that nobody seems to know how those names got into the bill particularly frustrating. Lawmakers really need to learn to use version tracking properly. It's shouldn't be possible for a single line of text to make it into a bill without a digital trail leading back to whoever added it.

> It's shouldn't be possible for a single line of text to make it into a bill without a digital trail leading back to whoever added it.

Counter-argument: there are GOPers afraid of standing up to Trump because they fear that doing so would trigger violence from MAGAland. E.g.

* https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/violent-threats-pile-u...

People used to vote for candidates in elections in public, and there was all sorts of intimidation and violence until secret ballots were rolled out.

I'm generally for political/politician transparency, but let's not ignore some of the trade-offs.

Re: North Dakota law lists fake critical minerals based on coal lawyers' names

#120

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jan 05, 2026, 11:08 PM UTC

simonw wrote: post #29

I find the fact that nobody seems to know how those names got into the bill particularly frustrating. Lawmakers really need to learn to use version tracking properly. It's shouldn't be possible for a single line of text to make it into a bill without a digital trail leading back to whoever added it.

There are records of who introduced and voted for each version of the bill and each change to it; individual responsibility for edits leading up to those actions are internal matters for the individual members offices, who is responsible for the content of the bill is unambiguous. The mystery being invented here is a distraction from that clear line of responsibility, and you are falling for it.