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

Justice Stevens reads the fine print

matthewbutterick.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 230 posts

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#81

Post by jeffreygoesto »

atoav wrote: post #68
noduerme wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer according to my family: Get a law degree. I'm the only one who doesn't have one / hasn't passed a bar exam. If you don't want to be victim of that system, treat being a lawyer as a form of hacking. It's no different than being a victim of dark pattern software practices, which you would be if you didn't know how to code. (Ironically, part of my slot involves helping lawyers get around pitfalls in software)…

It saddens me that such a great part of US society (as I perceive it from the outside) has basically given up on fixing any systemic problem at all. Be it small things like robocalls, or bigger things like a broken healthcare system, gun violence, lobbying in politics or things like the housing/opiod crisis — a big part of the US people I talk to have basically given up on any collective way of fixing these issues an…

What makes you think that these are systemic _problems_? Maybe they _are_ the system? SCNR. I am completely with you. There is a good deal of acquired helplessness involved where small deviations from that "system" are always are conceived as degressions, so the system can not be questioned in general. Wait for the "but capitalism is the best we could come up with so far" arguments to arrive. They are not completely wrong and part of the game...

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#82

Post by ivanche »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #25

Seeing the domain and the title I was wondering at first what the article had to do with typography. Mr. Buttericks guide on practical typography is an must read for everyone in print- and webdesign: https://practicaltypography.com/

OMG, that’s him! No wonder this site looks simply beautiful. Also, he wrote a book on typography for lawyers: https://typographyforlawyers.com/

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#83

Post by derbOac »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #21

Unfortunately the Supreme court has become more and more pro-corporations, which means that buying a car or getting a job is a lengthy one-sided legal contract likely waiving your right to trial by an elected judge, trial by jury, choice of forum/law, and arbitration costs that are significantly higher than if you were to go through a regular court. Of course the company has already picked the venue and arbitration c…

I'd be curious if there's a way to characterize "the prototypic expected human" as implicitly reflected in SCOTUS decisions and how that changes over time.

For example, this decision implies people are expected to read the volumes of fine print on a ticket before they purchase it.

Seems like if you decontextualized things it might point to absurdities in current law or its interpretation.

I think many decisions are affected by certain kinds of hindsight cognitive biases that distort interpretation of context.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#84

Post by OJFord »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #40
grujicd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a developer, I was shocked when at a friend's house saw that Alexa not only operated lights, but door locks and blinds. Or when another friend takes hands off the steering wheel to test lane keep assist. I don't think I can trust any software at that level.

I wouldn't mind blinds so much, but it'd have to be via a button; I dislike talking on a good day, let alone to a machine. That said, my lights are operated via RF remote(s) (two systems, one working on plugs, the other from ikea), pretty convenient without needing an internet connection. Just an awkwardly sized battery.

Why not just automatic? Maybe plus a button for privacy/needing darkness for a film or whatever depending on the room, but mostly I just want curtains & blinds to open in the morning and close in the evening.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#85

Post by makeitdouble »

lordnacho wrote: post #43

Someone needs to do something about the legal-industrial complex. It's a complete fiction that normal people read pages and pages of contracts, EULAs, and that type of stuff. It's basically impossible to read the docs for all the services you buy, and even if you did you wouldn't know what it meant in terms of law. Yet we have lawyers talking through the technical minutiae as if they are source code. There's a huge d…

> It's a complete fiction that normal people read pages and pages of contracts, EULAs, and that type of stuff.

I think incredibly long EULAs would be fine if violation on technicalities were lighter, and/or critical sections were put on top, in plain language.

For instance, I wouldn't care much about Youtube's terms and services outside of what would warrant an account ban, and what's the privacy boundaries. If Google had a clause to change my name to a random "white_dove_mud_pond-24523424" like string every time I include excrement related words in a comment, I probably wouldn't care much, they can hide it where they want. If instead it was a banning offense, I'd want it in the first 10 lines in big red bold letters. Failure to make it prominent should be ground for voiding critical clauses.

On the other extreme, I assume people actually sit for 20 min and read 30+ pages of contract verbiage when they're buying a house. IMHO there needs to be a proportionality between the time to spend on checking it and the consequences for not doing so.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#86

Post by willcipriano »

MarkSweep wrote: post #30
encryptluks2 wrote: post #21

Unfortunately the Supreme court has become more and more pro-corporations, which means that buying a car or getting a job is a lengthy one-sided legal contract likely waiving your right to trial by an elected judge, trial by jury, choice of forum/law, and arbitration costs that are significantly higher than if you were to go through a regular court. Of course the company has already picked the venue and arbitration c…

There has been some minor progress on this front. Arbitration agreements are no longer enforceable if you are sexually harassed or assaulted: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4445... A 20% of the house voted no on it and several Congress critters said in hearings that arbitration agreements are fine because they “voluntarily entered into”. So a lot of Congress people unabashedly serve corporati…

A lot of Congress people also engage in sexual harassment: https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/politics/settlements-congress...

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#87

Post by michaelt »

sandos wrote: post #60
krageon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say trusting any kind of software with door locks(!) is a terrible idea. Yes, if you use home automation you should self host. No, if you secure your home you should not needlessly expand the attack surface.

I use a "smart" lock, even with BT/wifi/GPS based automatic unlocking which seems to freak my fiancee out. I see it as stealing my phone is not different from stealing my key. The more sinister ability is to unlock remotely via the "cloud" which I am still a bit shocked that it just seems to work, and no complaints AFAIK from insurance companies. I just happen to know that locks aren't really a deterrent if you reall…

> On the other hand, in reality I am not going to be targeted by competent hackers (who would own me at once), but rather a crude gang of misfits roaming around for an easily burglarised home.

The threat isn't a competent hacker targeting you directly.

The threat is a competent hacker targeting the lock's vendor, getting their whole database, then selling address, entry code and occupancy times for $20 per home on the darknet.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#88

Post by markdown »

pronoiac wrote: post #32
markdown wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> recently I did watch the movie Legally Blond (recently for free at YouTube) OT, but what do you mean? Is youtube showing full movies now, or was this a pirate upload?

I forget how I got the link, but here's a catalog of movies on YouTube, whether buy, rent, or free with ads: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuVPpxrm2VAgpH3Ktln4HXg

I see nothing, so they must be geoblocked.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#89

Post by ClumsyPilot »

noduerme wrote: post #45
lordnacho wrote: post #43

Someone needs to do something about the legal-industrial complex. It's a complete fiction that normal people read pages and pages of contracts, EULAs, and that type of stuff. It's basically impossible to read the docs for all the services you buy, and even if you did you wouldn't know what it meant in terms of law. Yet we have lawyers talking through the technical minutiae as if they are source code. There's a huge d…

The answer according to my family: Get a law degree. I'm the only one who doesn't have one / hasn't passed a bar exam. If you don't want to be victim of that system, treat being a lawyer as a form of hacking. It's no different than being a victim of dark pattern software practices, which you would be if you didn't know how to code. (Ironically, part of my slot involves helping lawyers get around pitfalls in software)…

> The answer according to my family: Get a law degree. I'm the only one who doesn't have one / hasn't passed a bar exam. If you don't want to be victim of that system, treat being a lawyer as a form of hacking

We can't have a functional society like this: by the time i am done getting a law degree, a software degree, a finance degree (massive dark pattern there), medical degree , etc - i will be 60 and millions in debt.

In a functional society you rely on the rest of society to get things roughly correct, and to not defraud you every step.

Adopt the dog-eats-dog view of the world, and you will get basically russia - spciety ruled by fraud and violence, with mafia boss at the helm

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#90

Post by mjevans »

makeitdouble wrote: post #85
lordnacho wrote: post #43

Someone needs to do something about the legal-industrial complex. It's a complete fiction that normal people read pages and pages of contracts, EULAs, and that type of stuff. It's basically impossible to read the docs for all the services you buy, and even if you did you wouldn't know what it meant in terms of law. Yet we have lawyers talking through the technical minutiae as if they are source code. There's a huge d…

> It's a complete fiction that normal people read pages and pages of contracts, EULAs, and that type of stuff. I think incredibly long EULAs would be fine if violation on technicalities were lighter, and/or critical sections were put on top, in plain language. For instance, I wouldn't care much about Youtube's terms and services outside of what would warrant an account ban, and what's the privacy boundaries. If Googl…

Respectfully; No.

A standard library of terms, preferably from the highest (and thus widest covering) level of government, should be the bulk and basis of all widely common contracts.

I shouldn't have to re-read 40+ pages when I renew my dwelling's rental lease for another year; this should not be one more thing that has to be shopped around for. Don't provide an illusion of choice (as if we the people really have one) at the cost of 10s of millions of wasted person hours every year.

Just make the defaults fair for everyone and sane for everyone. Also, while at fixing things, please fix zoning and permits and finances and taxation to incentivize the missing 80 years of insufficient house creation.

Post reply on HN