Annotations: They can be used to specify the expected data types of function arguments and return values… or outputs, in a more generalized way.
If these could be repurposed, for the sake of this proposal, as to point to the expected results, of a provision of law.
I mean, if only FECA (Buckley v Valeo) would have had something like this implemented, the District court decision on preliminary injunction (FEC | Legal | Speechnow.org v. FEC)
On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act that limit the contributions that individuals may make to SpeechNow.org_, and the contributions that SpeechNow.org_ may accept from them, violate the First Amendment.
would have been a greater hurdle as precedent during the Appellate court decision
On March 26, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in SpeechNow.org_ v. FEC that the contribution limits of 2 U.S.C. §441a are unconstitutional as applied to individuals’ contributions to SpeechNow. The court also ruled that the reporting requirements of 2 U.S.C. §§432, 433 and 434(a) and the organizational requirements of 2 U.S.C. §431(4) and §431(8) can be constitutionally applied to SpeechNow_
since the reasoning behind the primary injunction was the following:
**emphasis added: Those important interest can gain a more important place if used with what would be our version of annotation. But that is just my opinion… what do you, beloved humans, think?
An idea for a Draft
def execute_FECA _____ -> [Avoiding even the appearance of quid-pro-quo corruption, Allowing for a just equality in voting]
--- Plain Text version:
FECA = (The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 92–225, 86 Stat. 3,
enacted February 7, 1972, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq. )
---
--- TYThon version:
[Include code version of provision]
---
End execute_FECA
@cenkuygur has alluded to laws being code for the humans, he did at least 8 years ago on this interview (and done so some more: times recently)
I think he couldn’t be any righter than that. It is basically the same thing Lawrence Lessig needed the help from Aaron Swartz* for the implementation in code of Creative Commons, but in the opposite direction(?)
*Aaron Swartz death was 11 years ago, I highly recommend watching his documentary:
I also think that TYT can pioneer on continuing Aaron’s labor: he relentlessly fought for information to be available, TYT can help making it more contextual and insightful for a broader audience… more Undeniably Clear
This process of standardizing an information process is a really greatly needed. We need transparency because of exploitation value. Also if you see the argument long form then collapse to short form you can construct framing more easily.
I will attempt to watch again.
To me the problem stems for accessibility. I get the problem of the concealment of information. You have another problem with the public wanting, and knowing the value of transparency.
Many then mistakenly attribute this to a lack of desire this is only partly correct. The climate for desire has to be present for that to exist. How much desire could there be when you spend your day in fear of making ends meet? Also there would be a certain PTSD associated with that fear wouldn’t there be? Maslow’s hierarch has truth to it.
What is powerful is look at the Scientology Auditing YouTube channels. I don’t want to open a can of worms, but do you see how they’re monetizing transparency? This is the model in my opinion.
I watch the documentary in full this time around it is very sad. I will say there is a big of swatting with the justice system here. To me that doesn’t seem that out of place.
I do find we had some similar points of views and personality traits. We seem to have much different upbringings and approaches. I know where his spirit was born, I too grew up in his era. There was the birth of move fast and break things ethos and the hacker community.
I don’t know if you know this but hacking did have some light hearted earlier qualities. Where the emphasis was just a prank. This play between pranks and law breaking has caused laws to be put into place that criminalized the access. In other words it was a trespassing crime. Now this makes some sense for privacy, but when you extend this to certain entities there is a public trust concern. This seems to be the source of the friction.
I must say I am not surprised the criminal justice system worked in unexpected ways to defeat him. Oppressive laws have always been on the books it would seem most only care when those laws oppress their class / identity. Also there is a cost to activism and uniting.
I think it is time to think many laws should be repealed unless reaffirmed at some point. We need a readjustment back to the ideals that common law was based on. Even better a new set of ideals that reflects a standards or are reflective of our ethos.
I would argue that our entire legal code needs to be rewritten. I’m sure much of it would remain intact, but laws written hundreds of years ago are still being used as a base or platform for new legislation. As was the problem then, who would write the laws?
Representation has always been lacking. Definitely a problem for people worldwide, and most countries’ laws and legal systems favor the wealthy. Right now we have some serious ideological divisions that have been inflamed by political provocateurs, people from opposing camps are barely able to discuss some major issues. Don’t think we can reach consensus on standards or ethos unfortunately.
Vast majorities of Americans do want money out of politics though, only the rich and rich adjacent want status quo. @fourthwall_dragon I think you’re right about the annotations gaining importance by placing them conspicuously. It’s slightly distracting when the space is larger than 2-3 lines, but it could be off putting if the expected 2-3 lines is actually a large paragraph. I’ll go back and reread your previous displays of this, I think it’s an excellent style of annotation.
