Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Can’t Take It With You

steveblank.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#31

Post by chc »

chc wrote: post #20
burningion wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A great lawyer must be agnostic. His job is to find a settlement in favor of his clients. He must manipulate the context to create a situation where his client wins by a landslide, using whatever means possible. There is no such thing as "exploiting the legal system". There is only winning for your clients. Otherwise you're making excuses why you can't win for your clients.

Logical conclusion: A great lawyer is willing to blackmail or assassinate any unfavorable judges or jurors who can't be eliminated through legal means. Surely you don't believe that actually falls under any reasonable definition of good ?

Four downvotes, zero comments. I don't mind the downvotes at all, but I would expect better from HN users than to downvote without offering any contribution themselves. Is my logic invalid? Do you not like my example? Are you simply opposed to three-character usernames? Simply downvoting does nothing to correct any deficiencies you might see in a comment.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#32

Post by dhimes »

arethuza wrote: post #13
gaius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…

In an adversarial system like the US and the UK each side in the case is expected to put up the best argument possible presenting their side of the case - it's not about them presenting the "truth" (although they obviously can't lie).

I read a passage on a standardized exam once that led me to believe that of the US and UK, only the US was adversarial, and the UK was more inquisitorial. The point of the exam passage was the contrast: in the UK, for example, both sides had to present all of the evidence they had. Not so in the US. Perhaps it's more of a sliding scale between the systems than a dichotomy.

Now, I have to admit I never followed up on this, maybe the passage was fictionalized.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#33

Post by tnorthcutt »

bokonist wrote: post #29

I worry we may be heading for a future in which only a few people plot their own itinerary through no-land, while everyone else books a package tour. That's been the case for the majority of human history. It's mostly the case now. Most non-religious, progressive thinking people, don't actually think through most issues for themselves. They believe in institutions - academia, NPR, etc. Most people believe what they d…

How did this get here?

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#34

Post by Ardit20 »

gaius wrote: post #10
vidar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.

Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…

I think Tom the lawyer is a fictional character not least because he is described so sterotypicaly and what makes him be at the top of his profession is also sterotypical.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#35

Post by Ardit20 »

dhimes wrote: post #32
arethuza wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In an adversarial system like the US and the UK each side in the case is expected to put up the best argument possible presenting their side of the case - it's not about them presenting the "truth" (although they obviously can't lie).

I read a passage on a standardized exam once that led me to believe that of the US and UK, only the US was adversarial, and the UK was more inquisitorial. The point of the exam passage was the contrast: in the UK, for example, both sides had to present all of the evidence they had. Not so in the US. Perhaps it's more of a sliding scale between the systems than a dichotomy. Now, I have to admit I never followed up on…

US and UK have pretty much the same legal system. The French legal system is inquisitorial and pretty much all of Europe or is it the world except for the common wealth?

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#36

Post by Ardit20 »

petercooper wrote: post #21

I came to a similiar conclusion a few weeks ago and have just finished setting up a system to try and record anything interesting I learn or find out in life in text and/or video form. I can't wait to get it rolling. Merely being able to read digests of what I've read or learn before should, I hope, bring most of the ideas back. Is there a name for this sort of recording?

Yes. Its a diary.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#37

Post by whatusername »

chc wrote: post #31
chc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Logical conclusion: A great lawyer is willing to blackmail or assassinate any unfavorable judges or jurors who can't be eliminated through legal means. Surely you don't believe that actually falls under any reasonable definition of good ?

Four downvotes, zero comments. I don't mind the downvotes at all, but I would expect better from HN users than to downvote without offering any contribution themselves. Is my logic invalid? Do you not like my example? Are you simply opposed to three-character usernames? Simply downvoting does nothing to correct any deficiencies you might see in a comment.

You forgot to factor long-term risk. If I got caught assassinating Judges/Jurors -- the impact for the company would be worse than losing whatever court case was being decided. Hence winning is important - but you need to play by the rules to make it in the long run.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#38

Post by c00p3r »

If you don’t teach it or write it down, the accumulated knowledge of your career is gone. Yeah. Keep your knowledge in a working memory. Keep your tools sharp. We learn by doing and so on..

Add to this that in an IT field things are changing so fast, that you need a constant daily learning to stay in a shape.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#39

Post by demallien »

gaius wrote: post #10
vidar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is not fascinated with the lawyer but with his proficiency in his field, the field is irrelevant.

Hmm, but: I’ll use misdirection to get the opposing counsel thinking I’m heading in one direction This is the wrong lesson. He's good at exploiting the legal system, that's all. It's not about who is right, it's about who has the cleverer lawyer. All this guy's "experience" is zero-sum, he's creating no wealth, he's purely parasitic. He's like a salesman who sells you something you don't want just because he's good a…

No, it is the legal system that is parasitic - it allows winning participants to generate great wealth for themselves without generating anything for society. However, from the perspective of someone forced to use the system (as we all are), Tom is actually generating real wealth (or protecting the client from losing lots of money), which is anything but parasitic.

Re: You Can’t Take It With You

#40

Post by jmatt »

keltex wrote: post #6

Better to take it one step further. Find people like this, interview them, put the videos online and let everybody share in their wisdom.

I think Coders at Work and Founders at Work did a pretty good job with this.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1430219483/

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1430210788/

Post reply on HN