If I were presented with this as a code review at work, it would be a hard "no".
This is debt ceiling deal. The so-called "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023". https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20230529/BILLS-118hrPIH-fiscalresponsibility.pdf
1/3
Neither the code nor the bill has any comments conveying the intention behind the change. That would be unacceptable at work.
One problem here is probably goals that aren't aligned, and the authors know that. It may be intentional that the ramifications of this change are not clear to other lawmakers, or to us the citizens who will be affected. Is this clause intentionally invalidating the requirement for environmental impact reports for some well-understood case that's covered by some other statute?
(3) in subparagraph (C)—
(A) by inserting ‘‘consistent with the provi- sions of this Act and except where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory re- quirements,’’ before ‘‘include in every’’;
3/3
@bwbeach Yeah, but the difference is that, as developers, we're encouraged *not* to break the system.
I don't think the same can be said to be true about politicians.
@LouisIngenthron Is it a bug? Is it a feature? It depends on your viewpoint if the outcome of the bill is to contribute to destroying the planet for future generations while lining Joe Manchin's pockets.
@bwbeach On an even more basic level, it depends on whether their constituents benefit more from upholding the system or tearing it down.
Mixing in random cleanups with meaningful changes would not fly at work. We ask developers to make separate PRs for refactoring that doesn't change behavior, and small focused changes that do change behavior. This cleanup is part of the 99-page bill.
(I'm assuming this change comes from deprecating "insure" and preferring "ensure" to mean "make sure it happens".)
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)) is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘insure’’
and inserting ‘‘ensure’’;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘insure’’
and inserting ‘‘ensure’’;
2/3