Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bismarcktribune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

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

#121

Post by dragonwriter »

throw0101c wrote: post #119
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…

Introducing bills (and voting on most things, though non-recorded voice votes do occur) in legislative bodies in the US is already public, what is being called for here has no bearing on that, it is about tracking edits leading up to those already-accountable events by staffers working on the bill before it is introduced (or doing thr same for an amendment that changes the text of a bill.)

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

#122

Post by cxr »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
cxr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

> 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.

Give this another think-through.

> How much language have you drafted that wound up in state or federal law?¶ This confident naïveté is part of the problem.

Mr. Crisscross: There is no amount of experience or lack thereof that can invalidate basic mathematical truths that are known about graph theory.

> 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.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

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

#123

Post by cxr »

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.

What's a "git login"?

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

#124

Post by IAmBroom »

dragonwriter wrote: post #120
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.

The single person who introduced the errant version is in no way guaranteed to know who wrote the changes.

Lawmakers have staff (and external interest groups) who build and shape the documents. We may optimistically presume that each lawmaker reads each change that they are proposing... but that's not true.

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

#126

Post by comrh »

mothballed wrote: post #101
comrh wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which one isn't real? https://www.canada.ca/en/public-safety-canada/campaigns/fire...

https://rcmp.ca/sites/default/files/dam/pfl-1229-a.pdf #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.

They use to make AR15s.

https://www.mpnnow.com/story/news/local/victor/2013/12/08/bu...

Also not "multiple" and not "from a video game"

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

#127

Post by comrh »

mothballed wrote: post #102
sdoering wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They banned a website as a gun: 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.

> The company that owned the website also manufactured AR-15 rifles...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR15.com

They use to manufacture. Not much of a gotcha

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

#128

Post by mschuster91 »

defrost wrote: post #37
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.

Yes, that .. but also - heat map activity tracking. It's often not so much what's in the three thousand pages of filler and bumf, rather more what's in the several paragraphs that get the bulk of the rewrites and horse trading - that and the last apparently unrelated change that kicks a proprosed Bill over the line to pass.

Or we could limit the size of laws? No more "omnibus" bills, no more horsetrading, no more bullshit. If it is too long to read and comprehend in a single day in full, it needs to be broken down into smaller laws, or contents be cut entirely.
Post reply on HN