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.
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.
>Why the hell you not just rewrite the old law and bump the revision?
Because it's aimed at lawyers and judges who have to be up-to-date with all changes and its easier for them to remember "section 123 was amended in 2026", than to recall a whole new revision and mentally compute the difference.
It's also why you often can see skipped items (e.g. 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10). Because humans often think in terms of "<..> code, section 123", not "<..> code, revision 24, section 123, which was section 130 in revision 20", so when you remove a part, it's more efficient to leave an empty space and to not reuse it later.
It probably is, and they are just stuck in the past not wanting to adopt new tools. You have people in tech reading chancelogs, or follow something like the openbsd-cvs mailing list. It feels like it would be easier if you did have have to look up a law, the search for amendments, which may or may not exist.
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.
Like branching a document for a particular negotiation. Or branch it when adapting it to a new jurisdiction’s laws, etc.
It would benefit so much from that workflow or mindset.
open comments, accepting pull requests, use AI tooling to weed out the ragebait and trolling for things that might actually be useful