u
>>107092324accident...but my thread was supposed to say: Why haven't computer scientists rewritten the rules for accounting? Accounting is a pen and paper profession (i.e. immutable transactions) that must be "undone" by complex means (e.g. journal entries and credit memos). Software should have revolutionized accounting, but it hasn't.. Why not?
>immutable ledger revolutionized accounting providing trustless decentralized coin issuanceAlso, what else do you want software to revolutionize? Make it less immutable and easier to fraud? Make it so that any retard can balance their finance and not go into debt? Make it so any small ma' and pa' company can do their taxes without they having to pay big bucks to an accountant or to the fines they'll get? There's zero incentive to revolutionize these.
>>107092395that is cynical, but I can't help but think it would still be better in the long run. for example: instead of closed periods on the books, which can be insanely annoying if anything needs to be adjusted, you could make any edits to any period. everything recorded in a log, version controlled. So you have 2024-Q3 v1, 2024-Q3 v2, and so on. accountants could easily diff these to see what has changed and why. Financial statements would be reproducible at any historical state. so yes, easier for the plebs to manage but also easier for accountants to review and audit.
>>107092342u
>>107092503No. No plebs want to learn how to do their accounting. They'd rather pay someone who actually knows how to do it to do it for them instead. Or if they don't actually need to (personal accounting) they just don't do it and get fucked. And yet they still don't want to do it, they'd rather say "nothing bad will happen, you worry too much" and get fucked in the ass.>>107092503>2024-Q3 v1, 2024-Q3 v2, and so onWouldn't even work, how would you even ensure there isn't a newer 2024-Q3 v3? Just rerelase whatever v-latest signed with today's date? Now instead of filinf 2024-Q3 back in 2024-Q4 you have to refile it ad perpetuum with newer signatures to guarantee nothing has been changed in those old documents, because the auditors can't know otherwise that those are the final documents. Much easier to just fix it using the current proper channels.Your proposed added convenience just doesn't outweight the stability of the current system, simple as.
>>107092560perpetual refiling would be ideal because usually there are changes needed year to year for previous years and it is a huge hassle to get those sorted out vs doing a diff. over time the diffs and logs would reveal no further changes to year n so you would no there is no 2024-Q3 v4 or whatever. It would be obvious if there way. accounting is so antiquated. everything is done as if it were a pen and paper ledger when it doesn't need to be that way now that we have computers, version control, etc
>>107092856>It would be obvious if there way.You're not thinking adversarially enough, Accounting is adversarial: one guy is trying to scam the other into making it confusing and not paying enough taxes, the other guy is trying to make the rules confusing so the first guy makes a mistake so he can be fined. Neither has the interest in simplifying it. You're still stuck up in your fantasy land where everything is nice and people just want to *gasp* track their cash flow legitimately and correctly.
>>107092342>that must be "undone" by complex means (e.g. journal entries and credit memos)Software I work in lets me reset any transactions and repost them after I make changes, nothing complex about that. There's nothing complex about fucking journal entries either tbqh
>>107092945software allows you to do that, but if you were to operate as if it were pen and paper, which is the paradigm under which accounting was designed, you shouldn't. so it shows a conflict between accounting practices and software capability
Now that this is an accounting thread I just want to say that the new SAP fucking SUCKS
>>107092324No u
