On the one hand giving parties more power sounds a little gross.

On the other hand I don't know a solve for every bill having less than a handful of votes that are bipartisan...

3 or 5 member multi-member voting districts determined by a geographic clustering algorithm using approval voting.

A lot of things are easier at the federal level.

After all the federal budget is so large because you can swap states but you can't get away from the IRS.

The left has been complaining about the executive branch over reach for quite a long time.

Hell as much as the drone strikes get simplified down to "Obama killed people without trials" the main complaint at the time was that he was acting without Congressional approval.

Democrats shouldn't have responded to Congress getting blocked up by Republicans realizing that they could make "ineffective government" a self fulfilling prophecy but pretending everyone is okay with it isn't accurate either.

Reductionist "if only the government didn't get involved" doesn't work unless you presume no government is beneficial (it is not since you just recreate all the bad parts of government anyway)

You can be critical of the policy of export controls and the meaning of them in modern day but saying it is a problem with the government in general is nonsensical.

The problem is not a presumption that government can't ever be good. The problem is that the team you personally think is "good" won't be in charge forever.

Everyone loves enabling broad government authority when people they like happen to be in charge.

Sooner or later, a government that is "bad" (for any possible definition of "bad" that you personally approve of) will someday be in charge. Then, suddenly, enabling all that broad government authority seems like not such a great idea.

I don't think this hypocrisy is as common as you believe it to be. I think the current government is extraordinarily bad - I'm on record calling them fascists and murderers quite a lot - and nevertheless it must be allowed to have this authority. There's no better option.

> Reductionist "if only the government didn't get involved" doesn't work unless you presume no government is beneficial

One can believe a government shouldn't get involved in *some* things without subscribing to the belief that "no government is beneficial".

>You can be critical of the policy of export controls and the meaning of them in modern day but saying it is a problem with the government in general is nonsensical.

Hardly non-sensical. You just have a different default.

You can reverse it. "If the government gets involved" doesn't work unless you presume government is beneficial (it is not since you just recreate all the bad parts of no government anyway).

> unless you presume government is beneficial

That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore.

The alternative is worse. No government at all implies anarchy which is worse that all but the very worst governments, and from which IMO some form of government will emerge anyway.

Why is highly organized/systematized violence preferable?

Why are you under the impression that you have a choice?

Those that are violent will always exist, and will always attempt to leverage their willingness for violence, and those that are able to - through luck or circumstance - gain leverage will be able to use that leverage to consolidate more until they have a hegemony on violence.

That's simply an observational fact of human history.

Governments are a way of occupying that opportunity space with some structure that _organizes_ that otherwise disorganized "cut people's faces up and flay them alive" sort of violence, and replaces it with "you get to grumble about the taxman every year" sort of violence. The averager person loses more freedom when there isn't a government around. The average violent psychopath gains more freedom (to become the government) when there isn't a government around.

That's why. Because I, and most people, prefer the paying taxes to getting flayed alive for insulting the duke. The government is a _binding_ of the monarchy and the warlord class to rules. If you look at the history of western democracy, it's extremely obvious.

I highly suspect that one of the reasons that Americans speak in this way.. that government as an idea is inherently some nonsensical or flawed concept - is compensation for their own sense of futility and inability to effect change on their own government.

It's hard for them to reconcile their self-image as "free thinking exemplars for the rest of the world" with the idea that they don't actually have control over their society. So they default to the idea that "all government is bad". If government by definition is bad, then obviously you can't accuse Americans and American culture of being particularly poor at creating a government that serves its people: it's just a fundamental structural problem, not a cultural problem.

To use internet slang: it's a cope.

Americans have exerted control over their society before, of course. It's usually through embarrassment of the people in power, with an implied capacity for violence waiting in the wings.

"So, why not now?" I dunno. Something about temporarily embarrassed trillionaires. Everyone seems afraid to dole out the kind of humiliation that would change elite behaviors, under the mistaken impression that what we're dealing with is not just "a tough job market" or "adulthood" or whatever, but our own measure of unnecessary (but politically effective) humiliation, drizzling down from on high.

Organized violence is self regulating if it wants to sustain itself.

The earnest answer is that it's more predictable than random violence, and its predictability makes it somewhat more preventable.

That said, there is a tendency for a system to drift away from this predictability as it's subjected to "review" by people who really, really want a particular outcome, regardless of the systemically-proscribed conclusion. "Bespoke" judgments for edge cases undermines the principle of predictability, which makes a return to "random" "coercion" desirable for some (as those who coerce in anarchy generally have less absolute power than a large system does).

But then, how do you show mercy (people are driven to do so) in a zero-tolerance environment?

This is the tension.

>No government at all implies anarchy*

No government at all can just imply anarchism, ie. a kind of self-governing that doesn't ascribe to our conventional ideas about government, presidents, pms, members of parliament, senators, etc.

That is what I meant by anarchy - the state anarchism wants to achieve. Collins dictionary says anarchy is "4. the theory or practice of political anarchism" but it seems it might be a British usage.

I do not think it is something that will work in practice, nor do I think it would be stable if it did.

There are two common uses of the term anarchy (and likely more, your definition appears to be the fourth in that dictionary).

Anarchy as in political/social chaos, where "everything goes" Mad Max style, and anarchy as in a volunteer governance system of direct democracy with no coercive authority.

The way you wrote it "which is worse than all but the very worst governments, and from which IMO some form of government will emerge anyway.", implied to me the former.

If you meant the latter, I'd call it absolute much better than the "very worst governments" and likely better than even the best traditional governments. Whether it can be long term stable is debatable, but a different claim. In any case, what we have is neither that well working, nor that stable.

Fair enough. I am just a lot more sceptical than you are about firstly, how well anarchy would work (I do not think it would scale up to the size of modern societies), and secondly how quickly it would be replaced by else and how bad that something else would be.

Is it? Don't know about other countries, but I am pretty sure the constitutional bedrock of the United States is to limit the federal government's ability to be malignant, even at the cost of some benefit. Whether that has been achieved is a separate question.

>That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore.

Sure you do. You just don't have a society that looks like ours does. And that doesn't necessarily mean monarchy or fascism or chaos as the only alternative.

The society you do get, might still even have a government too! Thinking government is not beneficial doesn't mean you dispense altogether with one. It can mean you have very difference tolerance and guardrails for it, as opposed to when defaulting to "government is beneficial".

What's more "government is not beneficial" might not even mean "any and all government is not beneficial". It might mean government of the type that's the "constitutional bedrock of our societies", and the mockery they call "democratic rule" is not.

> Sure you do. You just don't have a society that looks like ours does.

You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate.

If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

>You've skipped a few steps, until you overthrow the government all you have a broken society with a system of governance that's deemed to be illegitimate, therefore its rules and actions are illegitimate.

Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs.

>If you want to tear up the constitution and implement a new system of governance with "less government" then you're effectively advocating for a revolution. Just be honest and don't try to sell this as an incremental policy change.

Who said it has to be an incremental policy change? The claim I responded to was:

"That's the constitutional bedrock of our societies. That doesn't mean it's always true but if you denounce that as a legitimate and achievable goal then you don't have a society anymore."

You still get one. It's just not something you get while conveniently sitting on your ass and voting once every few years.

> Sure, so? We did that quite a few times in the past, that's how we dont' still have Pharaohs.

I'm not sure I'd agree. Mostly those in power in the past were overthrown by outside actors or failed gradually without an active "overthrow". The ones we think of as relatively successful are mostly those that are "stop being ruled by someone not local", rather than "change the form of government in place".

The idea that government could _not_ be involved is nonsense. You simply don't perceive some government involvement as involvement because you take it for granted. The only question is where do you personally want to draw the line, and by what principles do we organise government involvement.

You probably don't want the government to stop being involved in securing your property or maintaining roads. None of the tech firms want the government to stop being involved in securing IP rights. Etc. etc. etc...

It isn't technically a scam to offer a limited trial and bill when you go over as long as the terms mention that.

After all B2B transactions are often invoice based.

That is only true of semantically equivalent things.

Tabs vs spaces don't matter they are equivalent.

But consistency is only better when it is an improvement.

It is fundamentally important that convential commit is better for adopting it to be an improvement.

After all in your example wasting the first four characters of your commits with poop would objectively reduce the quality of your commit history, whether or not it was consistent.

> It is fundamentally important that convential commit is better for adopting it to be an improvement.

Absolutely! Which means we can also agree that conventional commit is objectively better than No System For Their Commits At All, which is what 99.9% of people are actually choosing between when evaluating conventional commit. They aren’t looking at conventional commit vs Some Better Way, they are looking at “we have no standardization of commit messages” vs “we have standardization of commit messages”.

For the 0.1% people for whom that’s not good enough, one hundred percent agree that these people should be pursuing better solutions.

Did you just not read the rest?

I was quite clear you are presupposing it is better without actually justifying that.

"Some standard is better than no standard" isn't generally true, it has some requirements.

> Tabs vs spaces don't matter they are equivalent.

Just to nitpick (because what else is this thread about? :))

They aren't equivalent! Tabs carry more semantic information than spaces. 1 Tab character == 1 Level of nesting

Space-based systems _can_ provide the equivalent semantic information if they are 100% consistent.

...but part of the argument in favor of spaces is that they allow an escape hatch of the strict indentation in order to allow pleasing visual alignments.

Tabs are not used consistently for nesting so your argument is missing some nuance.

E.g. foo(//long function call\n\t//more parameters)

Why undoubtedly?

In what context does wasting your first characters on fix vs feat matter?

PRs are going to have an explanation that has way more detail than necessary to figure that out quickly.

One lines tend to be (for me) in a situation where the difference is immaterial. If I am rapid firing through history I need to know what you did not why you did it.

Again I am not claiming that these are bad or even that they aren't good.

I am specifically disagreeing that any change is automatically good, that isn't true.

But that means you haven't actually done anything with the PR, it is a hypothetical thing.

Hopefully you have perfect CI coverage since you didn't bother to compile your PR even.

This flatly isn’t true.

Each individual PR gets tested and merged the same way they would if you’d authored them one by one in the first place.

The combination is merged in your tree well in advance of a PR ever being made. When the ancestor PRs are merged, you just pull and your descendent merge commit is rebased automatically.

At no point are you pushing untested code that you wouldn’t have pushed in a similar git workflow.

I mean so it is identical to how I already do this...

If I am pushing a PR with a working combination and rebasing after upstream merges how is jj changing the flow?

> LLM's now can capture intent.

Humans cannot capture intent so how can AI?

It is well established that understanding what someone meant by what they said is not a generally solvable problem, akin to the three body problem.

Note of course this doesn't mean you can't get good enough almost all of the time, but it in the context here that isn't good enough.

After all the entire Asimov story is about that inability to capture intent in the absolute sense.

Noctua fans have a distinct look, you could say the same about black, if you want to black them out just get a case that hides them since that would look the same.

Which is why they focus on getting a fan out before adding a second color

Calling people idiots for having different taste? You truly are a muppetman.