I find it funny that all it takes to become a well-connected mover and shaker of the political world is just to read the manual. I do hope Surdy gets into political commentary, sounds like he'd be...
whenever something happens on the floor that he doesn’t understand, he leafs through Congress’ various rulebooks until he can make sense of it. Last year, he finished a front-to-back reading of “House Practice,”
[...] Surdy’s ability to sift through “untapped but publicly available resources” to find details others miss.
I find it funny that all it takes to become a well-connected mover and shaker of the political world is just to read the manual. I do hope Surdy gets into political commentary, sounds like he'd be one of the few Journalists that knows what's going on.
RTFM is all it takes to solve numerous problems. Solving problems is why they write manuals to begin with. A more interesting question is if it is worth it to have rules so complex that most...
RTFM is all it takes to solve numerous problems. Solving problems is why they write manuals to begin with.
A more interesting question is if it is worth it to have rules so complex that most people can’t understand it without needing to read a book about it.
The kinds of documents are made primarily with lawyers in mind, and lawyers as the author. So it seems inevitable that the literature would end up as such. I do agree with the other discussion...
A more interesting question is if it is worth it to have rules so complex that most people can’t understand it without needing to read a book about it.
The kinds of documents are made primarily with lawyers in mind, and lawyers as the author. So it seems inevitable that the literature would end up as such.
I do agree with the other discussion that it'd be a good idea to make a "layman legal book" every few decades. If only as an excuse to review and and see if laws are still relevant. There are some hilarious state laws that I ponder being relevant even at the time of drafting: https://blog.linksquares.com/7-outdated-laws-that-you-might-have-broken
I've always thought it would be an interesting requirement to rewrite all laws into current language every x years, maybe 20 or 50. It would force us to prioritize what's important enough to go...
I've always thought it would be an interesting requirement to rewrite all laws into current language every x years, maybe 20 or 50. It would force us to prioritize what's important enough to go through all that again and get rid of blue laws. Ideally it would make average people more aware of the laws governing them, but that's just not realistic.
Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself, that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind, that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years, should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure.
It's the result of 200 years of laws, rules and processes spawning to address various needs and challenges. It's pretty natural for them to get complex, and I expect part of the complexity arose...
It's the result of 200 years of laws, rules and processes spawning to address various needs and challenges. It's pretty natural for them to get complex, and I expect part of the complexity arose due to trying to minimize room for loopholes. The bigger issue in my mind is that it takes multiple books to understand it.
I wonder how feasible it would be to condense the most crucial rules and processes into a more easily digestible single-volume format, with notes on where to find the details on more obscure processes. Maybe train an AI specifically on the all of the documentation for more obscure questions, not to provide answers like ChatGPT (because we can't guarantee it would give the correct answers) but to point people on where to find them within all the documentation.
I think part of it is that priority is often given to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. Part of why having originalists on the Supreme court is problematic. I feel a lot of law ends...
I think part of it is that priority is often given to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. Part of why having originalists on the Supreme court is problematic.
I feel a lot of law ends up needlessly complex because we try to fully codify and rank both guilt and extenuaring circumstances. I feel we could drop entire classes of crime and replace with murder and assault, provided that juries were given reasonable leeway with sentencing for extenuating circumstances.
But we always have to add one more rule because some troll was shouting "but technically I wasn't doing anything wrong."
Which is also part of the reason Tildes doesn't have well-defined moderation rules.
With how convoluted and long the "manual" is, I'm not surprised how few have read it. The article mentioned he used an 18-volume House reference book, and that's just one source on precedents. And...
With how convoluted and long the "manual" is, I'm not surprised how few have read it. The article mentioned he used an 18-volume House reference book, and that's just one source on precedents. And with how dry a lot of reference books tend to be... Yeah, really not surprised.
I wonder if it would be feasible to create a condensed version of all the rules that's easily digestible as required reading for new members of Congress, and can point to more detailed sources for specifics on more obscure topics.
[…] speedy response time and wide-ranging legislative knowledge is what has made @ringwiss [on Twitter] a go-to resource for staffers, lobbyists and reporters across Washington looking for answers on congressional procedures, especially in a year when lawmakers have been stretching procedures to novel ends and increasingly bucking leadership — creating a need for deeper understanding of oft-forgotten rules.
…
In fact, @ringwiss has never even stepped foot in the Capitol, much less worked there. The account, which lists its location as “Durham,” uses Homer Simpson’s head as a profile photo and frequently runs circles around veteran congressional experts, is run by Kacper Surdy, a 20-year-old economics student at Durham University in England. He is revealing his identity here for the first time publicly; previously, he has seemed to enjoy the Washington parlor game of trying to guess it, retweeting or engaging with those who try.
Crazy how quickly he's learned everything about US congressional procedure as a foreigner. Glad to see that what frustrates was also frustrating to me.
Crazy how quickly he's learned everything about US congressional procedure as a foreigner. Glad to see that what frustrates was also frustrating to me.
I find it funny that all it takes to become a well-connected mover and shaker of the political world is just to read the manual. I do hope Surdy gets into political commentary, sounds like he'd be one of the few Journalists that knows what's going on.
RTFM is all it takes to solve numerous problems. Solving problems is why they write manuals to begin with.
A more interesting question is if it is worth it to have rules so complex that most people can’t understand it without needing to read a book about it.
The kinds of documents are made primarily with lawyers in mind, and lawyers as the author. So it seems inevitable that the literature would end up as such.
I do agree with the other discussion that it'd be a good idea to make a "layman legal book" every few decades. If only as an excuse to review and and see if laws are still relevant. There are some hilarious state laws that I ponder being relevant even at the time of drafting: https://blog.linksquares.com/7-outdated-laws-that-you-might-have-broken
I've always thought it would be an interesting requirement to rewrite all laws into current language every x years, maybe 20 or 50. It would force us to prioritize what's important enough to go through all that again and get rid of blue laws. Ideally it would make average people more aware of the laws governing them, but that's just not realistic.
Jefferson suggested as much, at least for the constitution.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/jefferson-memorial-education-each-new-generation.htm#
There are no new ideas, lol. I didn't know about this, it's awesome!
It's the result of 200 years of laws, rules and processes spawning to address various needs and challenges. It's pretty natural for them to get complex, and I expect part of the complexity arose due to trying to minimize room for loopholes. The bigger issue in my mind is that it takes multiple books to understand it.
I wonder how feasible it would be to condense the most crucial rules and processes into a more easily digestible single-volume format, with notes on where to find the details on more obscure processes. Maybe train an AI specifically on the all of the documentation for more obscure questions, not to provide answers like ChatGPT (because we can't guarantee it would give the correct answers) but to point people on where to find them within all the documentation.
I think part of it is that priority is often given to the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. Part of why having originalists on the Supreme court is problematic.
I feel a lot of law ends up needlessly complex because we try to fully codify and rank both guilt and extenuaring circumstances. I feel we could drop entire classes of crime and replace with murder and assault, provided that juries were given reasonable leeway with sentencing for extenuating circumstances.
But we always have to add one more rule because some troll was shouting "but technically I wasn't doing anything wrong."
Which is also part of the reason Tildes doesn't have well-defined moderation rules.
With how convoluted and long the "manual" is, I'm not surprised how few have read it. The article mentioned he used an 18-volume House reference book, and that's just one source on precedents. And with how dry a lot of reference books tend to be... Yeah, really not surprised.
I wonder if it would be feasible to create a condensed version of all the rules that's easily digestible as required reading for new members of Congress, and can point to more detailed sources for specifics on more obscure topics.
Not just dry but often irrelevant, contradicting, or with multiple relevant sections spread across it.
From the article:
…
Crazy how quickly he's learned everything about US congressional procedure as a foreigner. Glad to see that what frustrates was also frustrating to me.
Some things are well-documented and that's a good thing. Being the person who reads the manuals makes you an expert, because most people don't bother.