United States Code (federal laws) in Git
nickvido
42 points
14 comments
April 03, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 42.5ms across 3,471 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Every Law a Commit – US Law in GitHub nickvido · 35 pts · April 02, 2026 · 61% similar
- Spanish legislation as a Git repo enriquelop · 709 pts · March 28, 2026 · 47% similar
- Ziggit: A Reimplementation of Git in Zig jedisct1 · 13 pts · April 02, 2026 · 45% similar
- Show HN: GitAgent – An open standard that turns any Git repo into an AI agent sivasurend · 108 pts · March 14, 2026 · 42% similar
- Show HN: Claude's Code – tracking the 19M+ commits generated by Claude on GitHub phantomCupcake · 13 pts · March 24, 2026 · 41% similar
Discussion Highlights (6 comments)
brodouevencode
hot take: this is how legislation should work open comments, accepting pull requests, use AI tooling to weed out the ragebait and trolling for things that might actually be useful
dataflow
Is there one for the Statutes at Large?
cvoss
> Not all titles are positive law — some titles are "evidence of law" rather than the legal text itself (see 1 USC § 204) The vocabulary of this sentence is inconsistent with section 204 [0]. It is the positively enacted titles which are "legal evidence of the laws". The other titles merely "establish prima facie" what the law is, subordinate to a closer examination of the bills actually passed, which control. In other words, "evidence of law" is the stronger of the two, not the weaker, as the readme suggests. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/204
mrweasel
A few years ago I was thinking about how one might do the same for Danish laws, but those are written by idiots (lawyers). Rather than revising a law, a new one seems to be written using text like: The word "is" replaces the word "was" in line 5 and 6 in "Law on X,Y,Z, paragraf 8, section 5". Or "section 9 in Law on Q,V,W is removed, in favour of the following text". Why the hell you not just rewrite the old law and bump the revision? After just two revision it's basically impossible to read the actual law. I think that's on purpose.
cap11235
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47621591
bnchrch
There's an interesting side effect to the current state of the non-technical world. We have some new tools that increase productivity, and these same tools both lower the barrier to entry to understanding software concepts and building software. I think the result is more people who would've been traditionally considered non-technical are going to be onboarding to concepts that wouldve been traditionally ring fenced in the developer world. Granular version control and diffs being one of them. If this trend is real, and relatively large, I think it will be a good thing.