Most Cities Got More Democratic. This One Didn't.

There's a great video by CGP Grey about it here: link , and a follow up about how they elect their government: ▶ this video

Well on the one hand you're saying it's not that strange, on the other there's the election process for who can become Lord Mayor of the City of London. ;) In most parts of the country the "Worshipful Society of Apothecaries" plays very little part in local governance... Here's another video from CGP Grey that explains it rather well:- ▶ this video ...and when did all this start? No body knows. It's so old there are no records.

I used to live and work in the city and loved telling people about the dragons guarding the city borders and the often weird and funny traditions. As much as the city is a hub of corporations it's actually far from the soulless place many make it out to be, and there is lots of interesting history there if you care to look. My favorite gateway drugs to learning more about the city of London are probably CGP Grey's videos: The (Secret) City of London: History Edition: link The (Secret) City of London: Government Edition: ▶ this video

I don’t know whether this is true because I never looked into it really, but a colleague of mine in the ndustry told me I could join the banker’s guild. His words were that because I lived in the city[1] at the time, and also worked for a bank in the city, I’d be eligible for membership if the bank would nominate or sponsor me as a representative. I’m hazy on the details, it was years ago, and I don’t really know whether it’s true since as mentioned I never checked it out. I kind of regret not doing so now though, since moving out of the city I’ve learned much more of it’s (weird and interesting) history and it would’ve been fun to at least try to see some of this from the inside. It probably wouldn’t have worked anyway, but would’ve been fun to try. For anyone looking for a fun little intro to the weirdness of the city and it’s history, I recommend CGP Grey’s channel and particularly his videos on the City of London[2][3]. [1]: for the benefit of people who might not be aware – “the city” is a colloquialism for the City of London, which is a small somewhat autonomous part of London, situated east of what most people (who don’t know this) probably think of when you say the city of London. [2]: link [3]: ▶ this video

CGP Grey's "The (Secret) City of London" are great videos on the topic of the City of London (vs. London) Part 1: link Part 2: ▶ this video

If anyone cares to know more about the City of London, CGP Grey did a nice two-parter video describing its history, its privileges and how to become mayor if you care to. The (Secret) City of London, Part 1: History link The (Secret) City of London, Part 2: Government ▶ this video

You're probably thinking of the City of London, which is an area inside London that has it's own government and special privileges apart from the rest of what we think of as London. ▶ this video

CGP Grey does a really good job giving an overview of the history of The City of London. link Along with another video about the governing structure of The City of London. ▶ this video

It's an interesting point. How does one determine when one is past the point of being a spoiler and into being a serious candidate? It seems that there is a self-fulfilling prophesy here, wherein if one is concerned about being a spoiler, then one will begin drawing votes away from other viable candidates as soon as they enter politics, and thus spoil; but yet, in order to ever become a viable candidate in the first place, one must do that. Perhaps the counter-argument is that you could enter politics away from an election, to "test the waters" without drawing support away from other candidates. But that's not a serious way to enter politics. Or you could enter politics at a different level, a lower level. I don't know if that's a viable way for Lessig to accomplish his aim. The same type of problems he's talking about might exist in other political spheres, but they aren't the ones that seem to concern him primarily. I can buy those arguments, but they leave me uneasy for a reason I can't characterize. It reminds me somewhat of the process of becoming the mayor of the city of London [1], where you're only allowed to run once several groups of people approve of you. It seems like Lessig is being held to a different standard, almost, because he is entering politics with a specific policy objective in mind, rather than because he himself wants to become a leader. Most politicians enter politics simply to win and become leader, and so they can be judged by whether they win. Less

In programming terms: namespacing. You have a set of activities which people do. You have validations on those activities. To determine whether a working arrangement is legal, all validations must pass. The UK has one set of validations. The EU has another. Some of them check the same things. Both the EU and UK validations make use of abstractions. One of these abstractions they reference is a particular symbol named 'work'. However, the symbol for 'work' is not defined in a common namespace or dictionary, but is instead private to each ruleset. Therefore if the EU court rules that 'work' must be defined a certain way for the purposes of EU regulations, it does not affect the UK regulations. If you think that's at all confusing wait until you hear about the government of the city of London. ▶ this video