[HN Gopher] Spanish legislation as a Git repo
___________________________________________________________________
Spanish legislation as a Git repo
Author : enriquelop
Score : 676 points
Date : 2026-03-28 12:01 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| enriquelop wrote:
| I built a pipeline that converts all Spanish state legislation
| into version-controlled Markdown. Each law is a file, each reform
| is a real git commit with the historical date. 8,642 laws, 27,866
| commits.
|
| The idea: legislation is just patches on patches on patches. Git
| already solves this. Instead of reading "strike paragraph 3 and
| replace with...", you get an actual diff.
|
| The repo is the product. Browse any law, git log to see its full
| reform history, git diff to see exactly what changed.
|
| Built the pipeline in ~4 hours with Claude Code. Source is BOE
| (Spain's official gazette) consolidated legislation API.
|
| Exploring whether there's a business here -- structured
| legislation API for legaltech/compliance, or just a useful open
| dataset. Curious what HN would build with this data.
| 7777777phil wrote:
| cool idea, how far back (in time) do those 27k commits go?
|
| Just thinking how this could maybe used for (automated)
| research / visualization on the evolution of (spanish - in this
| case) law
| codethief wrote:
| > how far back (in time) do those 27k commits go
|
| Looking at the commit dates (which seem to be derived from
| the original publication dates) the history seems quite
| sparse/incomplete(?) I mean, there have only been 26 commits
| since 2000.
| Meneth wrote:
| It seems the commits aren't in proper date order. Here are
| some newer changes, placed before the latest commits:
| https://github.com/EnriqueLop/legalize-
| es/commits/master/?af...
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| It's related to commits actually having a parent-child
| structure (forming a graph) and timestamps
| (commit/author) being metadata. So commits 1->2->3->4
| could be modified to have timestamps 1->3->2->4. I know
| GitHub prefers sorting with author over commit date, but
| don't know how topology is handled.
| codethief wrote:
| > It's related to commits actually having a parent-child
| structure (forming a graph) and timestamps
| (commit/author) being metadata.
|
| Yeah, I think everyone is aware. It's just that the last
| couple dozen commits, to me, looked like commits had been
| created in chronological order, so that topological order
| == chronological order.
|
| > I know GitHub prefers sorting with author over commit
| date, but don't know how topology is handled.
|
| Commits are usually sorted topologically.
| artirdx wrote:
| Laws intent are often clarified in courts through judgments. If
| you can overlay the judgements on top of the corresponding law,
| at correct points in time, I think that will have value. It
| might, for example, show which laws were referenced the most
| and which needed to be clarified the most. It might give
| insights into what legal language constructs stood the test of
| time and which had to be repeatedly clarified.
| da_chicken wrote:
| That's true, but it might not be as important here.
|
| Spain is not a country with a Common Law legal system
| entirely like the US or the UK. They have a civil law system
| where prior court judgement does not form a strictly binding
| precedent. Prior judgements can be important, but case law is
| not really a thing.
| tephra wrote:
| I wonder how true this is, we have the same system in
| Sweden, that court judgement are not legally binding
| precedent for lower courts. But in practice lower courts
| will follow the rulings made by the high court.
|
| Is it not the same in Spain at all?
| philistine wrote:
| It's the same in Spain, which makes OPs proposal kind of
| useless. The big distinction between a civil and a common
| law system is the fundamentals. A country's civil code is
| properly defined, while a common law's system is based on
| previous cases you have to dig through to find the
| basics.
| markdown wrote:
| > while a common law's system is based on previous cases
| you have to dig through to find the basics
|
| In other words, you have to hire a lawyer. They really
| built a great system for themselves, didn't they?
| amszmidt wrote:
| Would be nice if someone did it with Swedens laws too!
| mrimskog wrote:
| I built it with Claude Code last summer :) Check it out:
| https://github.com/se-lex/sfs
|
| It's generated by this CLI: https://github.com/se-
| lex/sfs-processor (md with temporal tags, html or Git
| commits as output format)
| dotancohen wrote:
| Laws are often cascaded as well. Specifically in this case,
| Spain is subdivided into Comunidades Autonomas - each have
| their own elected parliament. And inside those are cities
| with their own local laws.
|
| So while this project does track laws, is there any facility
| to determine which laws from which bodies are relevant to a
| specific activity in a specific location?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > And inside those are cities with their own local laws.
|
| No, cities don't have their own laws, but the autonomous
| communities do have some influence in some laws and
| regulations (not all), like the amount of income tax you
| have to pay and so on. But cities within the autonomous
| communities don't have their own laws.
| donalhunt wrote:
| No by(e)-laws in Spain? Certainly a thing in the UK,
| Ireland and I believe US and Canada. Is that a common law
| thing?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| "By-laws" is typically the name of the rules/"laws"
| inside of a company or organization, I'm not familiar
| with that word in the context of "nation-wide
| criminal/civil laws".
|
| Regardless, cities do not have their own "local laws" in
| the way your comment made it seem. We have national laws,
| and minor differences in various autonomous communities,
| since they have some legislative power to control their
| own industry, commerce, education and some more stuff.
| ninalanyon wrote:
| > "By-laws" is typically the name of the rules/"laws"
| inside of a company
|
| I suspect that this should be qualified by "in the US"
| embedding-shape wrote:
| No, I was talking about Spain, I have no idea how it
| works in the US. I thought mentioning "autonomous
| communities" was enough context to make it evident, but
| maybe it wasn't.
| eep_social wrote:
| as an american I might call those "local ordinance" when
| they come from a smaller rulemaker like a town
| dylan604 wrote:
| > inside of a company or organization,
|
| Corps and cities are very similarly structured. Each are
| charted at the start, with corps getting governed by
| boards and c-suite types while cities have mayors and
| city council types. Both file paperwork to exist within
| the state. Both are subject to state laws, but are
| allowed to make up regulations specific to them as long
| as they are within the state's laws.
|
| In the end, it's all just paperwork, at least in the US
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Local authorities in Spain do have the authority to enact
| their own law-ish regulations, which are called _'
| ordenanzas'_. For example, if I remember correctly,
| motorbikes are allowed to park on the pavement by default
| in Barcelona unless a sign says otherwise, but it is
| forbidden in Madrid unless a sign explicitly allows it.
|
| I think local government in Spain has at least as much
| authority as it does in the UK, maybe more, but almost
| certainly less than it does in the US.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| I may be wrong, but I think autonomous community
| legislation is not published in the BOE itself (the
| Official State Gazette), but rather in each of their
| corresponding official gazettes (e.g. DOGC for Catalonia,
| BOCM for Madrid, BOA for Aragon, BOJA for Andalusia, etc.).
| youknownothing wrote:
| yes: Comunidades Autonomas can only defined laws as
| "permitted" by the central government under a Estatuto de
| Autonomia (Autonomy statute? not good with legal jargon),
| which is effectively a law of its own. So at the central
| level the law says "in this particularly region, matters of
| education are dealt with regionally", and then that's when
| regional laws apply. Same from local laws. In essence, all
| laws emanate from the central government, but the central
| government decides to delegate some areas; technically,
| they could always take it back.
| pseingatl wrote:
| Rarely in a civil law jurisdiction, essential in common-law
| jurisdictions.
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Perhaps reference it in the commit trailer?
| artirdx wrote:
| Another thought. Assuming such a dataset (laws+ judgement)
| could be built, an argument can be made to Parliament to
| draft new laws that take into account all those judgments and
| then mark those judgments and old laws in a way that they can
| no longer be referenced (archived?). This might simplify
| future cases leading to lower legal costs.
|
| And who knows maybe a way could be found to create smart
| contracts (smart oracles? smart judges?) and those could lead
| to instant judgements.
| Bewelge wrote:
| Oooh Can you elaborate a bit how the gazette is publishing
| them? Like what format did you have to parse. And how many
| documents were there in total? I tried doing the same for
| German laws 1-2 years ago but LLMs weren't smart enough yet.
| And the costs would've been at least a couple of thousand EUR.
|
| Ed: Nevermind, I missed the "BOE (Spain's official gazette)
| consolidated legislation API" part. Sending jealous greetings
| from Germany. We just have a bunch of PDFs in Germany. And the
| private entity that has been publishing them for decades even
| claims copyright on them!
| sivann wrote:
| Heh we have the exact same status in Greece. It's sad the
| upstream is so sloppy.
| brcmthrowaway wrote:
| Do you mean DIN?
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Congratulations, this is a brilliant resource. You have done
| one of those countless things which I often think about doing,
| but my utter lack of follow-through and other distractions make
| it a fantasy. I cannot wait to clone the repo and explore it.
|
| As to what can be done with the data, maybe one interesting
| step could be a graph-database regarding laws which reference
| other laws or the definitions that they depend on?
| daedric7 wrote:
| Please! Can you make the same for Portugal? Laws here are a
| mess of reforms...
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| is there a similar API for Portugal?
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| It would be a good place to start if you wanted to hard fork
| the government.
| youknownothing wrote:
| This is brilliant. I had thought about this for a long while,
| you see laws that are just "go to law 132 and amend paragraph
| 4, then go to law 24 and amend paragraph 9". Basically "laws"
| are recorded as diffs, and then it's up to the reader to put up
| the final product in their heads. They should be doing it this
| way!
| wyan wrote:
| To be fair, the BOE website often offers the consolidated
| version for many important laws, which includes further
| amendments by other laws in one text.
| rmonvfer wrote:
| I looked into this a while back and IIRC, the consolidated
| legislation doesn't cover all legislation but only a handful.
|
| Also, in my experience (having built in this space before),
| regulations aren't really the issue. Court rulings are, because
| there's no open data for them in Spain. And the potential users
| for a paid product (legal professionals) already know the law;
| the key players (big law firms) have their own databases of
| annotated and verified court rulings and other documents.
| airstrike wrote:
| This is really cool. I've thought about it for a long time as
| well but never had the idea of just using git, which is equal
| parts genius and "obvious" in hindsight, as most great ideas
| are.
|
| I think the corollary that comes to mind is that reforms, with
| their git commits, are incrementally valuable if they refer to
| other parts of the legislation, previous commits, etc. to give
| more context as to the intent at the time of the law. So maybe
| there's a way to distill the legislative process into more PR
| and commit-oriented work--likely ex post as you did here, but
| perhaps in the future as part of an actual workflow.
|
| And then maybe I'd pitch the idea to some technologically-
| inclined local government.
| aerhardt wrote:
| I've had the idea of playing with our laws and trying to ask
| questions about their growing volume and complexity. This is
| timely and dope Enrique - mil gracias!
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Too bad that author, and committer are individuals and not
| lists. It would be good to see who wrote them and how the
| voting went as well.
| manunamz wrote:
| Very cool project. How are you thinking about indexing and
| discoverability? Git gives you the change history, but
| navigating the corpus itself seems like the harder problem:
| Finding related laws, understanding hierarchical relationships
| between statutes...
|
| Have you considered embedding semantic hierarchical structure
| directly in the markdown? Something like
| https://github.com/wikibonsai/semtree ? It lets you build a
| navigable tree across markdown files using indented
| [[wikilinks]] as the organizational spine. Could be a natural
| fit for legislation that already has an inherent taxonomy
| (constitutional - organic - ordinary, or by subject area).
| mattogodoy wrote:
| I've thought of this of many times! But you're missing the most
| important part: every reform should be a PR. With discussions
| and all. That would be the purest form of voting. And all
| decisions to reach the current state of a law would ve
| registered and available for everyone to read. Democracy 2.0.
|
| Dreaming costs nothing.
| gopher_space wrote:
| > Exploring whether there's a business here -- structured
| legislation API for legaltech/compliance, or just a useful open
| dataset. Curious what HN would build with this data.
|
| Compiling legal data for specific domains and then selling
| processes that rely on your _private_ compilation is a battle-
| tested business plan, but there 's a lot of manual work
| involved and the cost of that work becomes a barrier to entry.
|
| Generally speaking, the people who'd like to cross that barrier
| are both open to ideas and funded well enough to run little
| experiments.
| markdown wrote:
| I've long wanted to do this, but don't have the api. This is
| much harder to do with pdfs
| rayshan wrote:
| Would love to get the U.S. tax law as a dump of markdown files.
| Then everyone can build their own TurboTax.
|
| https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/tax-code-regulations-...
| j-bos wrote:
| This is brilliant. I wish this were available for all
| legislations. There's so many inefficiencies that are trivially
| solved with existing tech frameworks.
| appstorelottery wrote:
| I couldn't agree more - this is fantastic work.
| Schmerika wrote:
| > There's so many inefficiencies that are trivially solved with
| existing tech frameworks.
|
| There really, really are.
|
| The legal industry is _well aware_ of that fact - and how many
| billable hours they stand to lose by making their work more
| efficient and understandable.
|
| You know how tax prep companies spent over $90m 'lobbying'
| Congress to ensure that filing your taxes remains difficult and
| complicated [0]?
|
| Well, lawyers know just as well or better how to butter their
| bread; and they will pull out every dirty trick they have to
| scupper attempts to make practising law more transparent or
| efficient in any way.
|
| 0 - https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/09/tax-prep-
| companies-...
| wolfi1 wrote:
| unfortunately, laws are not everything. you need to know how
| to get around them. our country for example has the habit of
| creating a lex fugitiva that means that some regulations
| could be changed in other not related laws. good luck finding
| the correct regulation without a law degree
| DennisP wrote:
| It's not just the legal industry, it's the legislators. I
| used to be friends with a former state senator, who had a
| background in forensic accounting. She said they purposely
| made the bills harder to parse than necessary so it was hard
| to figure out what they were actually doing. Given enough
| time, people could do it but in practice there wasn't time
| before voting on the bill, and that was on purpose too. Of
| course some of it was to reward lobbyists or do other
| unpopular things, but she used to read bills from back to
| front because the back was where they put all the graft. An
| example I remember was $50K in taxpayer money going to a
| congressman's birthday party.
|
| For a while I thought about trying to write software that
| would turn the obscure natural-language diffs in written
| bills into a readable diff, showing the laws before and after
| with highlighted changes. But she said they just got the
| bills as paper printouts which weren't always even up-to-
| date, so it might not have helped much. Maybe now they're
| online. And LLMs might make the project easier.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| Presumably, there must be some point in time where the bill
| is made public in some form before going to a vote. If you
| could get the right tool in the hands of a journalist to
| turn whatever obscure format it's in into something legible
| by an ordinary person there's probably value there.
| newyankee wrote:
| and then we have people touting Jevon's paradox as outcome of
| AI disruption leading to more work. Before we create new work
| we need to figure out how to reduce incentive of people to
| unnecessarily complicate stuff and to be honest the answer is
| never clean or easy
| f1shy wrote:
| I would like to have a legal advisor based on that. At least
| for a first question, qithout paying a lawyer
| Esophagus4 wrote:
| > so many inefficiencies that are trivially solved with
| existing tech frameworks.
|
| Out of curiosity, like what specifically?
|
| Didn't DOGE's failure highlight that it actually wasn't
| trivial? I'm skeptical at first glance but open to being proven
| wrong.
| bojan wrote:
| DOGE wasn't actually trying to make things more efficient.
| You can't count it as an honest attempt.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| DOGE made the token gain more in market cap than it saved in
| expenses. Despite having at head a master of blind layoffs.
| 0x3f wrote:
| > Out of curiosity, like what specifically?
|
| For example, there are thousands of divisions of government
| out there provisioning largely the same systems in duplicate.
| E.g. the very local government here has a web portal for the
| sports venue bookings like pools and tennis courts. They have
| a waste collection portal. Local tax portal.
|
| Only recently has this been slightly standardized but even
| those efforts are purely regional. You might get 5 local
| councils in the city using one SaaS platform, another 5 using
| another SaaS platform, and another 5 rolling their own. For
| each function of local government.
|
| Nevermind the fact that a local government in France like
| this probably has very similar needs to one in Belgium or
| even the US.
|
| And the worst part is they are terrible at procurement so
| even when they do consolidate, they're basically getting
| scammed.
|
| I often think about starting a cost-plus-priced open core
| project to deal with these issues. Like we build common
| government functions, and sell it for cost plus 20% markup,
| with a licence that lets the gov run it themselves if we ever
| go bust. But then I think procurement is largely a grift game
| and it might not do well for that reason.
| akudha wrote:
| Wouldn't consolidation lead to monopoly? If 50 local
| governments use the same SaaS/vendor, the 51st local
| government would likely go for the same vendor just because
| 50 others used that vendor before them, no? What prevents
| the vendor from jacking up prices or general
| enshittification at the stage?
| 0x3f wrote:
| > What prevents the vendor from jacking up prices or
| general enshittification at the stage?
|
| Well what I'm proposing building would be source-
| available and licensed such that the gov can run it
| themselves if it ever gets too expensive. The sub-gov
| entities should really band together for the negotiation
| though, then they can ask for whatever they want: non-
| profit vendors, liberal licensing, price agreements. A
| collective of government buyers form basically a
| monopsony larger than any individual vendor could ever
| be.
| j-bos wrote:
| To be clear, I wasn't exclusively referring to government. I
| was actually only thinking of the use of git-like version
| control across a number of different technical domains, law,
| design, book writing, architecture, etc
| rafram wrote:
| Everyone in government knows what Track Changes is. The
| standard format of a piece of legislation in British-influenced
| systems _is_ a diff. The tech field does not have secret
| knowledge that the rest of humanity lacks.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. I feel like people in software
| tech always think they have secret powers that experts in
| other fields can't imagine.
| j-bos wrote:
| > Everyone in government knows That's part of the point good
| rafram, I'm not in government but I've looked up laws for at
| least three jurisdictions and have never encountered version
| control. A tool at the bottom of a drawer or in only one
| person's belt is not a tool to anyone else.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| And, in the example of the stereotypical venture capital
| seeking techbro junk that has somehow infected the entire
| world, this project doesn't actually understand or solve any
| real world problems.
|
| No shade on the author, they made a fun thing. I'm directing my
| cannons more towards the parent post idea that the world needs
| software developers for their rare genius to use their
| beautiful brains to solve problems in ways no actual
| participant in the system could have ever thought of.
|
| The additude that because you can prompt a LLM to write some
| python you are also uniquely situated to solve the world's
| problems is how we built an entire generation of automated
| solutions worse than what we had before.
| dgreisen wrote:
| Our nonprofit, Open Law Library, is working on this exact
| problem. It is definitely not trivial, but it is very doable.
| We partner directly with governments to help them implement so
| the git repos become the canonical record (rather than just an
| unofficial mirror).
|
| Maryland just launched their regs on our platform:
|
| https://regs.maryland.gov (https://github.com/maryland-dsd/law-
| xml-codified)
|
| Feel free to reach out (email in bio) if you would like your
| community to publish their official laws on GitHub!
| coopykins wrote:
| Hey, very nice! Seems like a great way to have LLMs answer
| questions about the laws more reliably.
| worksonmine wrote:
| Hey! How can I make this about LLMs?
|
| (Many countries' laws are already available online and included
| in the dataset they're trained on. The project is very cool for
| humans though.)
| d--b wrote:
| I think French laws have been on website that's like that for a
| while
| codethief wrote:
| The German parliament even has an official git repository:
| https://github.com/bundestag/gesetze
|
| Looks like it's been abandoned, though. :(
| layer8 wrote:
| The GitHub org being called "bundestag" doesn't mean that
| it's anything official. It looks like it's made by
| independent activists.
| codethief wrote:
| Oops, I should have checked this more carefully. Thanks!
| Rexxar wrote:
| https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/
|
| If you go on particular laws, you can see the previous versions
| and how it changed. Example:
| https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000...
|
| Click on "version" then "comparer" buttons and you will see a
| diff.
| adjejmxbdjdn wrote:
| Love this idea
| smashah wrote:
| I've been saying for years that any and all legal documents (and
| all lawyers) should be required to be on/use git
| larsiusprime wrote:
| Is the idea that the commits themselves are also time stamped
| with the date of the legislation/amendment too?
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| Yes
| larsiusprime wrote:
| Brilliant!
| Quarrel wrote:
| Great project.
|
| For others wondering, while most of the Franco-era laws were
| nuked in 1978, this does include lots of old laws (ie pre-20th
| C).
|
| However, the source material starts with a sqashed commit in 1960
| :) So no changelog before that. The BOE source though is pretty
| phenomonal, they've scanned files going back to the 1600s so far.
| rwmj wrote:
| This is great. Compare it to British legislation which is frankly
| a mess of patches. Example picked fairly much at random, this law
| was originally passed in 1990 and has been "patched" regularly:
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/9
|
| Laws being passed are these ludicrous sets of patches:
|
| https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/part/1
| codethief wrote:
| I think such "ludicrous sets of patches" are very common in
| many jurisdictions. (At least in Germany they are.) I agree,
| though, git patches would be a lot nicer.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I think it's similar everywhere. IIRC from time to time here in
| Argentina when there are too many big changes, the legislature
| make copy of one old law with all the amends and add all the
| new ones and approve the new version. Let's say every 50 years
| or so, and not all the laws at the same time. So the "current"
| law is a mostly a mess of patches.
|
| The main difference is that in Britain the judge decisions
| become almost-laws, so it's like a repo with too many people
| with commit right. I think in Spain the judge decisions have
| less weight and only the legislature has commit permissions .
| hirako2000 wrote:
| Also the principle of common law.
| gib444 wrote:
| Let's hear your solution to the mess.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| It's not messy. You have to take into account that every patch
| is voted separately - read Robert's Rules of Order for an
| enlightenment ;)
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| This is really great, anyone know of a Dutch version?
| layer8 wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47554274
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| yeah thats a great start, however the md files of every
| change are really helpful in going though history and
| understand steps with llms'
| dorianmariecom wrote:
| for france there is https://www.lafabriquedelaloi.fr/
| icpmoles wrote:
| For older edits there is https://github.com/steeve/france.code-
| civil
|
| Unfortunately Git is based on Unix timestamps so everything
| pre-1970 has the wrong date.
| MomsAVoxell wrote:
| Great idea! I hope you did something like: $ git
| commit --amend --author="Author Name <author@spanish.gov>" --no-
| edit
|
| .. with the details for the author of each commit.
|
| Then, it would be simply amazing to run gource, sit back, and
| watch where all the noise is coming from.
|
| Gource:
|
| https://github.com/acaudwell/gource
|
| What gource looks like:
|
| https://gource.io/
|
| I've long wanted to see gource applied in other sociologically-
| relevant contexts and this'd be a real good one ..
| PenguinRevolver wrote:
| I tried using Gource and... well, the commits were not sorted
| by _date_ , so the time goes all over the place.
| throwaway_2626 wrote:
| This is amazing. I have a couple of suggestions: - Maybe breaking
| the "Spain" folder into subfolders? Not sure what categories
| could be used, but browsing would be easier. - There's a missed
| opportunity in having different authors for the commits (maybe
| the "legislatura" number), and possibly, tags/labels including
| the political parties that voted in favor of each.
|
| I'll take a look at data to enrich it :).
| d0m wrote:
| I wonder which country will be the first to be run entirely by AI
| instead of corrupt politicians
| layer8 wrote:
| I don't think a country where everyone is absolutely right
| would work.
| canyp wrote:
| You're absolutely right.
| logicallee wrote:
| >I wonder which country will be the first to be run entirely by
| AI instead of corrupt politicians
|
| State of Utopia[1] has this manifesto[2]. In our estimation
| (and we use AI a lot), it is not powerful enough to govern a
| country yet. We thought it was worth trying anyway.[3] We would
| like it to be able to handle contexts that are millions of
| times greater (think more like 1 billion tokens than 1 million
| tokens), and even so AI governance is a very difficult matter.
| In addition, once AI governance is achieved, how can you truly
| trust the governance model not to be corrupted? Transparent
| government run by AI is an additional point of difficulty.
| These days, the most difficult unsolved problem is how to
| introduce voting and users' comments without inviting comment
| spam and vote rigging. You can watch my latest update here[4]
| (I'm sorry, it's very quiet), and we welcome your input on all
| subjects. We have a fully autonomous agent currently running
| the country, which consists of a Mac Mini and a Claude
| subscription (plus our own dedicated server in a country that
| recognizes us, and we have a couple of other embassies by
| agreement and legal contract). But in practice this government
| just does whatever I tell it. It's not advanced enough to run a
| code of laws, which is one of the basic requirements citizens
| expect of their country. The size of problem space for running
| a country is larger than models can handle, but many things
| help.
|
| One of the best hopes we have is with deterministic offline
| models where we share the pipeline with people ahead of time,
| so they know exactly how it will work. This could be a
| trustworthy matter of dispute resolution, if we get the
| architecture right.
|
| For example, our country could help you sign a contract and in
| case of dispute, both parties could submit supporting documents
| and make statements and the offline model they agreed to at the
| time of signing their contract could adjudicate. This pipeline
| could be transparent from the start. This won't satisfy
| everyone, but might provide the minimum standard of having a
| code of laws that assists with contract enforcement. For now,
| all you can really do is keep checking our site for updates and
| leave comments about what direction you'd like the country to
| take. (For example, you can leave a comment on my latest update
| on Youtube.)
|
| [1] https://stateofutopia.com
|
| [2]
| https://claude.ai/public/artifacts/d6b35b81-0eeb-4e41-9628-5...
|
| [3] https://medium.com/@rviragh/ai-is-not-ready-to-create-
| utopia...
|
| [4] https://www.youtube.com/live/K0dgrPRWPCs
| zaep wrote:
| Nobody seems to have (yet) mentioned the most recent (rn) commit
| [1] dated 2099. I can't really figure out where the date came
| from, at the source noted in the commit I find no '2099', I can't
| see it being a joke, if it's a bug it's not obvious to me..
|
| I'm sure I won't be the only one curious, please enlighten me.
|
| [1]: <https://github.com/EnriqueLop/legalize-
| es/commit/424cbc96507...>
| gloosx wrote:
| Classic. He forgot to add "make no mistakes" to the prompt.
| Based on the commits alone Im not sure anyone really reviewed
| the correctness of the git history.
|
| When someone specifically mentions "built in ~4h with Claude
| Code" they probably didn't care that much about the outcome
| quality
| forgotpwd16 wrote:
| It's a cool PoC even if implementation/result isn't perfect.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| I'm surprised the world is not running a system where laws are
| formally encoded using some DSL that would allow making decision
| (guilty/not guilty) using formal logic. Perhaps there is not much
| interest from law making/enforcing parties for this either.
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| That's a common fantasy of developers who haven't touched grass
| in a while.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| It's a rehashing of Leibniz's "Calculemus!".
|
| It's not a fully stupid idea, many rules can be automated and
| indeed have already been. The things that courts still have
| to decide manually are the leftovers that require more human
| judgment.
| fph wrote:
| This pipe dream will soon be replaced by "let's have the
| first degree of judgment be ChatGPT; human judges should
| only deal with appeals".
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| Sounds like every self-driving startup
| krzyk wrote:
| Why is it a fantasy to have a fair system with no room for
| interpretation?
| rileymat2 wrote:
| You'd also probably be surprised about how subjective and
| unevenly applied the law is... by design, to allow appropriate
| outcomes and discretion.
|
| Edit: Consider the following words included in law.
|
| "reasonable" "reckless" "due care"
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Have you actually tried reading a single law? If you have, have
| you tried to write just one article in formal logic?
|
| Certain laws, like parts of tax law may be possible to turn
| into code, like percentages and deadlines, but even those often
| carry natural language conditions that can't be evaluated so
| easily. Seriously, try it.
| gloosx wrote:
| Maybe we should go further and use some DSL to speak with each
| other in the first place? Would def make everything straight
| and eliminate ambiguity!
| bonoboTP wrote:
| That's Lojban.
|
| Turns out, ambiguity is an intentional communicative tool.
| bentcorner wrote:
| I don't think this is where the problem lies. If you kill
| someone with intent, it's murder. But the whole system needs to
| prove that you killed someone with intent beyond a reasonable
| doubt, and a DSL will not help you there.
| anthk wrote:
| Law is not 100% exact. For instance, the age of consent in
| Spain it's 16, and you are adult by 19. You and a group of
| people had sex with a 15 yo. Your friends are well over 20 (24,
| 25...), and OFC trialed and jailed. But you, being almost close
| in maturity to that girl, (and noticed by psychologysts testing
| both the girl's mindset and yours ) can have the charges
| perfectly dropped.
|
| Ditto with alcohol laws -18 there-. Selling a cyder to a 17 +
| 11 months guy would have a much smaller fine than a hard liquor
| to a 14yo.
|
| The reverse it's true, too. 14yo are the minimum age to be
| legally punished. If you are 13 and barely stole some $20 Steam
| card -if any- you just got sentenced to spend your formative
| years in a juvenile center.
|
| But, if you are 13yo gang member and you have a longass list of
| both petty and hard crimes and the last one has been a bloody
| crime with serious injuries or homicide... you can be sent as
| an _exception_ to an adult prison because your mentality and
| mindset are not the ones from the early teens.
|
| Especially if your body it's really developed for your age and
| you basically commanded mini-clans as the ones you can see in
| Ireland, Italy and the like. When you can smack down adults at
| age 13 and even ilegally drive a car, the Spanish constitution
| wont save you. Ultimately you must -and can- be trialed as an
| adult but also be able to finish the mandatory education years
| until you hit 16. Not easy, of course, but sending these kind
| of people to juvenile centers just generates more thugs than
| anything else.
|
| If this is difficult for humans, imagine that for software with
| exact constraints.
| TZubiri wrote:
| I've seen something like this before, here's the Argentina
| constitution as a git repo, with reforms as commits. Much shorter
| in scope, but this was pre LLM coding
|
| P.S: Sadly my PR amendment was repealled
| cyrusradfar wrote:
| I think this is great. Only limit of git is I can't imagine "git
| blame" works. It would be nice to know who voted for and against
| each patch. Git isn't structured for collaborative commits.
| hirako2000 wrote:
| That could actually be a git commit log with date, votes and
| other metadata.
|
| But getting the entire country's law into git is already an
| impressive feat.
| 3eb7988a1663 wrote:
| If we are spitballing, I think there should be an actual file
| associated with the text so you can see the vote. A file
| makes it trivial to grep for "Senator X".
|
| Not git, but Congress actually does have quite a bit of data
| digitized. A random example[0] -they even provide XML. The
| Congress data is going to give you all bills - many of which
| do not pass, so a different mission than this project.
|
| [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-
| bill/4818
| nuhuhh wrote:
| Yeah you can, just smash commits on the PR where multiple
| contributed. It will say it was a collaborative commit in
| history showing all their avatars.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Git isn't structured for collaborative commits.
|
| Git isn't structured for collaborative commits, but community-
| wide conventions kind of "patches" support for it on top of the
| git message body, via "Co-Authored-By: name <name@example.com>"
| which IIRC most platforms support, and the convention itself
| initially comes from Linux kernel development.
| 1718627440 wrote:
| You could have the parliament (meaning including the election
| cycle) as the main author and then the parties and votes as Co-
| Authors.
| dinkumthinkum wrote:
| Is this really a problem we have now, though? This information
| is publicly available. If everyone here is so excited about
| LLMs then why would this even be needed? Anthropic can just
| give us the answer to every question. We don't need nerds that
| know what git is. :)
| peterhadlaw wrote:
| Does it include the law that made it okay for Noelia Castillo to
| commit suicide the other day?
| downsplat wrote:
| https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2021-4628
| brandnewideas wrote:
| There are laws that prevent you from committing suicide?
| torcete wrote:
| It was assisted suicide. Meaning the government helps you to
| commit suicide.
| downsplat wrote:
| It's called euthanasia. You can ask the medical system for
| an assisted suicide if your life situation is extra painful
| with no hope for recovery.
|
| This case got heaps of media popularity because the
| christian right wing latched on it, and the father tried as
| hard as he could to impede the euthanasia. Ultimately got
| told that the lady unequivocally wants it and qualifies,
| and he can't override that.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Ultimately got told that the lady unequivocally wants
| it and qualifies, and he can't override that.
|
| Not just once, but five times by different courts,
| finalized by the European Court of Human Rights!
|
| > Her request had been approved on July 18, 2024, by the
| Catalonia Guarantee and Evaluation Commission. The
| commission found that she met all legal requirements, as
| she had a "nonrecoverable clinical situation," causing
| "severe dependence, pain, and chronic, disabling
| suffering."
|
| > But in August of that same year, her father - advised
| by the ultraconservative religious group Christian
| Lawyers - began a legal fight to stop the process
|
| > From then on, her father initiated a long legal process
| that delayed Noelia's euthanasia for 20 months, going
| through five judicial levels: a Barcelona court, the High
| Court of Justice of Catalonia, the Supreme Court, the
| Constitutional Court, and the European Court of Human
| Rights.
| OrangePilled wrote:
| Your enthusiasm is remarkable.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I come from a society that doesn't value compassion that
| much, so now when I live in Spain which has a lot of it,
| it's hard not to feel good about it. Wish it was the same
| in more places in the world, we're all human after all.
| peterhadlaw wrote:
| Cold-blooded murder ~= "compassion". Got it. Cool.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Helping someone avoid "nonrecoverable pain, forever"
| isn't "cold-blooded murder" in my mind, but I figure
| there is no point is arguing against someone who doesn't
| understand nuance.
| OrangePilled wrote:
| It shows.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Great, guess I've learnt sufficient English to be able to
| communicate my ideas and thoughts, thanks!
| ks2048 wrote:
| Generally legal assisted suicide doesn't mean "the
| government helps you commit suicide" - it means it's not
| illegal for a doctor assisting a patient to commit suicide.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I think it was "okay" even before that law to be euthanized.
| However, the law adds a "a legal, systematic, balanced and
| guarantee response to a sustained demand of today's society
| such as euthanasia".
|
| But yes, it seems it is included indeed:
| https://github.com/EnriqueLop/legalize-es/blob/master/spain/...
| (which seems to have been well written enough to not needing
| any changes [so far])
|
| Very glad my country is so compassionate with people that we
| can facilitate things like things when needed.
| peterhadlaw wrote:
| "culture of death"
| embedding-shape wrote:
| We all die, so I suppose for some of us, "good death" is
| better than "forced to be alive although you don't want
| to". Worth remembering where the word comes from:
|
| > Euthanasia (from Greek: euthanasia, lit. 'good death':
| eu, eu, 'well, good' + thanatos, thanatos, 'death') is the
| practice of intentionally ending life to eliminate pain and
| suffering.
| mold_aid wrote:
| I would assume so. But that's probably it; it's for Wikipedia
| to record the failed attempts of Christianists to make it not
| "ok."
|
| Like many, you are confusing "making it legal" for "making it
| ok." But that is of course the root concern of Christianism as
| an ideological project. Thankfully the correct legal
| interpretation won out here, as it did in the US Schiavo
| case(s).
| whattheheckheck wrote:
| Quite a few happen
| https://www.statista.com/chart/28130/assisted-suicide-number...
| sigio wrote:
| I did the same with a limited subset of dutch laws a while back:
| https://github.com/sigio?tab=repositories&q=wetboek
| 0x3f wrote:
| Neat. I wonder if there are commercial products that are formal
| specifications of laws, decisions, etc. Such that you can reason
| on them via solvers etc.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I think it's a rite of passage for every developer who ever
| touched the ecosystem of law to also wonder the same. Probably
| even since the invention of "business programming" there been
| developers wondering this. Many has attempting, so far, I don't
| think anyone succeeded.
|
| But I'm sure someone at some point might figure it out, you
| never know :)
| 0x3f wrote:
| Well, there's a new batch of autoformalization attempts with
| LLMs now. Although I've also heard people say
| autoformalization will always be impossible.
|
| It's interesting to wonder what kind of coverage Cycorp
| managed to achieve internally, and on what domains. Seemingly
| no job openings at the moment though!
| planteur wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177022
| 0x3f wrote:
| Nice, now I just need to spend 5 years encoding it all and I
| can finally start my 'AI' tax evasion consultancy firm.
| vitorbaptistaa wrote:
| Congratulations! This is a very cool project. A few years ago
| there were similar ones -- browse gitlaw.
|
| In Brazil we have lexml, a standard to describe the law and their
| changes over time. It's surprisingly complex.
| phlakaton wrote:
| Hah! XML strikes again. :-)
|
| I understand that Spain was a participant in LexML as well... I
| gather they've since converted to something else?
| josalhor wrote:
| Not only would be cool for laws to have appropiate time stamps so
| we can "go back in time to how it was at a certain moment", but
| also if we could have proper git commit diffs of how laws change
| over time. See this:
| https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2015-11430
|
| You can see how certain articles have the option to check "how
| that particular article was at each moment in time". That would
| be way harder to track, but it would be awesome if not only could
| you "go back in time and see what the law was" but also "how its
| been evolving".
| jonhohle wrote:
| Not only that, but authors and approvers could be used to track
| who created and voted for each change.
| dan_linder wrote:
| Then compare wording and structure with other bills proposed
| elsewhere to look for single sources trying to legalize an
| agenda or retry after earlier failed attempts.
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| it would also be cool to know the "why" that went into the
| change
| comboy wrote:
| Add CI to check if new laws don't contradict with any existing
| ones.
| bertil wrote:
| You might need to turn laws into formal proofs, and the
| existence of judges makes me think that's not as likely as you
| would like. A commenting system would though--trained on
| countries's precedents, jurisprudence and traditions might.
| whattheheckheck wrote:
| Can you imagine rebases with merge conflicts?
| bentcorner wrote:
| This could in theory already happen without any tech, but I
| suspect since the government is pretty monolithic, any
| changes in a specific law are all being done by the same set
| of people.
|
| You might not have merge conflicts but I imagine you could
| end up with conflicting guidance from two separate pieces of
| law (e.g., law A says you must wear green on St. Patrick's
| day, law B outlaws green pajamas).
| bertil wrote:
| This is a key project, and I'm sure many countries have enough
| developers who might try and get it done, but a project that can
| do it for most legal systems (assuming the sources are on-line)
| would help a lot more people access legal resources.
| SweetSoftPillow wrote:
| We need it for every country and every law in the history of
| humanity
| drob518 wrote:
| The date of the last commit is 2099.
| saglogog wrote:
| Nice
| AtomicOrbital wrote:
| all of government data including all laws especially tax law
| needs to be put online and optimized by ML
| MinimalAction wrote:
| The general sentiment here is that it's a great project. Could
| someone please explain why? All I'm seeing is that laws are
| updated with commits within markdown files.
| saadn92 wrote:
| The value is in the semantics git gives you for free once the
| data is in this shape. Right now if you want to understand how
| a law changed, you go to the official gazette website and read
| a document that says "strike paragraph 3 of article 12 and
| replace with the following text." You're doing the diff in your
| head.
|
| With this repo, git log --oneline -- spain/BOE-A-1978-31229.md
| gives you every reform to the Spanish Constitution in one
| command. git diff between any two reforms shows you exactly
| what changed in context. git blame tells you which reform
| touched which article. These are operations that would take a
| lawyer hours of cross-referencing, and they're free once the
| data is structured this way.
|
| The other great thing: you can build tooling on top of it and
| use it with the CLI.
| MinimalAction wrote:
| Thanks for a beautiful explanation. Makes sense now that this
| repo enables git diff, git base to reveal changes easier.
| saadn92 wrote:
| of course, thanks for asking a great question!
| xeromal wrote:
| The why is that it's cool. Why it's not cool for you cannot be
| explained by us, only you.
| MinimalAction wrote:
| I didn't say it's not cool. I was trying to understand the
| utility of it being great.
| xeromal wrote:
| Coolness and greatness can be the same thing.
|
| For instance, the big Lebowski is great and cool.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| All legislatures need to work this way as soon as possible!
| _ache_ wrote:
| In France, not only our law are versioned. It's formally proved
| too!
|
| https://catala-lang.org/
|
| *Edit*: Woah ! The French crew is here. We are at least 5 quoting
| a variation of <https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/> for versioning.
| allan_s wrote:
| I find it ironic to have it named "catalan(g)" on a post about
| spanish law.
| asveikau wrote:
| Even better. The Catalan word for Catalan is catala. So
| catala-lang.org fits that too.
| kiliancs wrote:
| Previous discussion
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177022
| theptip wrote:
| Nice! I was just implementing this for CA state bills.
|
| Is the parsing/uploading code shared somewhere else?
|
| Definitely the kind of idea that would have been below my
| activation energy pre-Claude.
|
| I think this approach should be standard, I have always wondered
| why the source of truth for these documents is not moved to a
| repo like git.
| dylan604 wrote:
| my first reaction cynically would bet that government really
| doesn't want the people to know exactly what the laws are. a
| more generous reason would be nobody in law is truly technical
| enough to understand it let alone implement it.
| ks2048 wrote:
| A couple things I noticed opening one random page
| (https://github.com/EnriqueLop/legalize-es/blob/master/spain/...)
|
| It left out the tables (e.g. under 2.1 Materiales.) and the
| images (e.g see the very bottom).
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Looks like we're heading toward some resolution to the old
| problem 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. Born in a world with
| plenty of laws, the jeopardy that goes with them, and no easy and
| reliable resources, that would certainly be welcome.
| makaking wrote:
| I love this. This made me think that logging all legislation in a
| public VCS might be a very good way to leverage superintelligence
| while maintaining democracy. I want this for Germany.
| maCDzP wrote:
| Nice, I am going to this for Swedish law! Any suggestions on how
| one can model parliament voting when a law passes using GitHub?
| Or all the work that preceded a law, that's like a feature
| request or a bug report.
| setopt wrote:
| Parliament voting, maybe upvotes and downvotes on a pull
| request?
| juahan wrote:
| I started doing it for Finland!
| mrimskog wrote:
| I've done this for Swedish laws: https://github.com/se-lex/sfs
| (Markdown with git history)
|
| https://github.com/se-lex/sfs-processor (processor with Git,
| md, md with temporal tags, or html as output formats)
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| We need something like this for every country.
| sandbx wrote:
| Did you try more heading levels for the article names?
| lcrisci wrote:
| I love it. This is a step in the right direction to have a
| transparent database of existing laws and be able to consult them
| with your AI or anything capable to reason about them and explain
| the status quo of our national laws. I would love to see a
| similar setup for other countries.
| boredatoms wrote:
| Is there something like this for the US?
| wavemode wrote:
| Even if there were, it wouldn't be very useful. In a "common
| law" system like the US, legal questions are rarely answered
| purely by the plain text of a law. You also need case law -
| that is, how the law is typically applied in practice by the
| courts.
| boredatoms wrote:
| Sure, then that with case law too?
| smitty1e wrote:
| The legislation seems more high-level requirements, that then
| implemented over in the Code of Federal Regs[1].
|
| Using AI to plow through and make sense of all this would put
| us at risk of people knowing what the USG is getting up to.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
| the-rc wrote:
| There was a project at Google Chicago to do something like
| that, around 15 years ago. For some reason, it was never
| launched.
| sh-cho wrote:
| Good Idea!
| reality_inspctr wrote:
| love this. I did something similar w the US Constitution.
| https://usconstitutionapi.com/
| PhilipV wrote:
| Well done. I believe that Governments should have a Open Licence
| for copyright purposes like exists in the UK that allows Govt
| docs to be used for commercial purposes without issue. I would
| want to propose a step forward there so that the next generation
| of this open licence actually has a data set approach to making
| data sets available - possibly at cost. Governments are losing
| the ability to charge for nominal items in paper as digital is so
| openly available - they can make a revenue on providing data at
| large to public so that others can build or simply if not for
| free.
|
| Well done and great to see items like this and great to see the
| comments.
| 0x3f wrote:
| The UK is IMO quite terrible in this regard. Yes, a lot is OGL,
| but very key items are sequestered away and very costly to
| obtain. OGL is a total bodge; just get rid of Crown Copyright.
|
| When it comes to the law specifically, there's a whole silly
| setup with transcription companies as well.
| postepowanieadm wrote:
| Legislation is out of copyright. Unofficial consolidated
| versions may be a different matter.
| wrxd wrote:
| It would have been cool if the commit authors reflected the
| actual politicians responsible for the reforms. Find a law, run
| `git blame` and immediately know who's responsible for it
| deepsun wrote:
| And even more useful would be unit-tests -- here is a loophole
| and here is the law preventing it.
|
| Whenever a law is about to be changed/removed, run all the
| tests to make sure no regressions.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Jurisdictional laws don't work that way though. It's more
| like a script for improvised theater. Everybody get the same
| text, but no one gets the same performance twice.
| ecocentrik wrote:
| Tests for correctness, self similarity, duplication of
| concerns, contradictory statutes, edge case detection, cruft
| or outdated laws that muddy the waters...
|
| If the full compliment of software development practices were
| applied to legislation and ordinances we would be living in a
| very different world.
| dylan604 wrote:
| oh gawd, code is law is back. or is it law is code?
| pilingual wrote:
| One idea behind the PoC Right to Privacy Act is having tests. A
| recurring theme with conservative Justices is clarity of legal
| text.
|
| Testing may not exhaust all scenarios but it is useful to see
| where loopholes may exist or whether a bill that sneaks in while
| you aren't paying attention is unfavorable to your values.
|
| https://github.com/righttoprivacyact/bill/blob/main/tests/te...
| psychoslave wrote:
| Laws are there to inform the land how the dominant class expect
| to be served. At least in theory the dominant class could be
| the working class or the majority, mind you. In practice you
| generally get a better idea looking at what small network core
| founded the country, generally through bloody wars or
| genocides.
| rafram wrote:
| This is incredibly software engineer-brained. The law doesn't
| work like software. The only thing that matters is how the
| judiciary interprets the text, and if you try to use LLM "test"
| output to argue for a specific interpretation, you'll be
| laughed out of court.
| pilingual wrote:
| I believe you hastily misinterpreted the point. It's merely a
| tool that wasn't possible before.
| LukeB42 wrote:
| law.py -- A Distributed Legislature:
| https://gist.githubusercontent.com/float64co/deb887691f13dee...
| matthewgard1 wrote:
| I did something very similar for some US state level laws.
| "Legit" legislative git.
|
| Useful for alerts in our concern area, and monitoring proposed
| legislation iteration and flow through committees to keep ahead.
|
| I can imagine quite a few other more civic interest uses as well!
|
| Hoping to open source some later myself, seems an area ripe for
| some open civic citizen/hacker projects. Bet some fun startups
| could be made on top too, gl.
| notorandit wrote:
| That's how it should be everywhere!
| enriquelop wrote:
| OP here. Thank you for the incredible response -- I did not
| expect this.
|
| Many of you asked if the code is shared. It is now:
| https://github.com/legalize-dev
|
| The pipeline is multi-country by design. France already works as
| a second country (Legifrance data). Adding a new country means
| implementing 4 Python interfaces for your national gazette. The
| rest (markdown, git, web, API) is generic.
|
| I wrote a guide for contributors who want to add their country:
| https://github.com/legalize-dev/legalize-pipeline/blob/main/...
|
| From this thread alone, people asked about Germany, Portugal,
| Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, and Brazil. If you know your
| country's open data source for legislation, a PR is the best way
| to help.
|
| I'll be honest -- I don't know how much time I'll be able to
| dedicate to this, but I'd love to build something big.
| Legislation is massive and scaling to more countries takes real
| infrastructure. I'm setting up an Open Collective to fund hosting
| and development: https://opencollective.com/legalize
|
| Live site with browsable laws + diffs: https://legalize.dev
|
| Everything is still very precarious, time to time.
|
| Thank you
| wyan wrote:
| The fact that the oldest current law in the list is about places
| where nuns are allowed to be buried is quite amusing, in some
| sort of way.
| anthk wrote:
| Heh, with the BOE you need a Common Lisp expert in order to parse
| _that_. Some legal sentences look like a text from Marx, and not
| the Commie ones.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-28 23:00 UTC)