790
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2025
790 points (100.0% liked)
politics
25129 readers
1990 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This came up in the thread last night. Why would you dynamically load content that, practically, never changes?
It ACTUALLY never changes. Even if it's Amended, the Amendment is an addition, nothing gets removed.
See: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Yup, even the ban on alcohol is still an amendment (the 18th). It's just cancelled out by the 21st.
That’s what the s html element is for:
<s>strikethrough</s>~~strikethrough~~
(not to be confused with
/sfor sarcasm)That and using # for Trump headers like so:
TRUMP ISN'T RACIST, YOU'RE RACIST!
So hot right now.
Still waiting on that tag to be canonical
The default CSS style should do a text transform to:
AbsoFUKANlutely
~~you can also use markdown to strikethrough by putting two swintons on each side~~
Ha! That took me a little longer than I care to admit, but I actually lol'd.
It's annotated, so it's possible that the annotations could change.
Annotations could be a separate call based on a simple section tag with an id, very compatible.
So brown people can be detained and deported easier. Duh.
because this is an annotated version of the constitution with legal analyses. those texts need to be updated occasionally with new case law.
It's almost like the base document can be loaded without annotations and never change. Then have the annotations load separately on top of the base page preventing even this odd "could be a tech issue" problem.
Don't accept their blaming tech for it. There is no reason that those annotations should even have been updated at this particular point anyway.
I mean, there's been court cases pertaining to those sections recently.
I said nothing about accepting tech problems or assigning blame. it’s simply a sensible design for a website that is occasionally updated to use dynamically loaded elements.
If the tech issue is real, it's because they were changing these annotations to basically the same effect, downplaying or deleting these sections of the constitution. (Not currently capitalized.)
Because not all documents are immutable and it doesn't make sense to have a one off system. It is the same reason that most websites use the same CMS system for the "about us" page that might change one every two years as well as every single article and calendar.
But also... having an immutable document also feels like one of the best unit/sniff tests you can have.
Yes, the correct way to display a short simple document like this is plain html with bog-standard structure and indexing/metatext markup plus device and accessibility targeted css. That is it. Any scripts or references should fail fully gracefully back to web 1.0.
I would not be surprised if some 20 year old "vibe coder" touched it, since they don't know shit about computers they made bad choices.