Live data from Hacker News

Justice Stevens reads the fine print

matthewbutterick.com

101–110 of 230 posts

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#101
post #5

Related to the opening of this article – it is interesting to see how one can get completely soured on certain products or experiences because, by virtue of their profession, they see the dirty underbelly of how things in that industry actually work. Someone who has read cruise contracts in detail will never want to go on one. Cooks with experience in commercial kitchens never want to eat at a restaurant again. Someo…

Thank you for the examples of a cruise, kitchen, and building bridges! Analogies are helpful :)

I work as a software engineer. If you asked me to do civil/mechanical/structural engineering, I'd have the same approach:

Build. And run!

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#102

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)…

This is one of those answers that will get written up about in the New Yorker. Clearly the most logical answer for this audience…

Apparently it wasn't that well taken. Is the New Yorker accepting submissions from roundly rejected HN commenters these days? I've always wanted to caption one of those cartoons. "Yes, my accountant always does his business in the bushes". That sorta thing.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#103
post #60
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…

> I am not going to be targeted by [...]

This reminds me strongly of an ex-employer of mine, whose response to a security vulnerability was inevitably "our customers won't do that". It's one thing to have a threat model, it is quite another to dismiss low-hanging fruit (and trust me, whatever "smart" lock you have is very low-hanging) as not a big concern.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#104
post #71
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.

You should probably update your threat model.

Why, is it out of date? Am I missing the latest security updates?

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#106
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cooks with experience in commercial kitchens never want to eat at a restaurant again. Having done such work, this is absolutely untrue. I got a renewed appreciation for the hard work kitchen staff put in and the stringent requirements on cleanliness that kitchen staff has. I suppose this will change based on the country you are in, if you are in a country with bad sanitary checking you will have a bad time.

I have ten years in kitchens and while I do eat out I also know how disgusting kitchens are. I have a stomach for it but if you were a regular person and knew what I knew you'd refrain from eating out. We pay back of house staff as little as we can get away with to work every weekend and holiday in hellish conditions. They just don't give a crap and who can blame them.

> I also know how disgusting kitchens are [...]

They're disinfected literally every day, and during the day all surfaces are regularly cleaned. If this isn't mandatory where you live, you live in a country with bad hygiene laws.

> We pay back of house staff as little as we can get away with to work every weekend and holiday in hellish conditions.

This doesn't match where I live at all, FWIW.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have ten years in kitchens and while I do eat out I also know how disgusting kitchens are. I have a stomach for it but if you were a regular person and knew what I knew you'd refrain from eating out. We pay back of house staff as little as we can get away with to work every weekend and holiday in hellish conditions. They just don't give a crap and who can blame them.

> I also know how disgusting kitchens are [...] They're disinfected literally every day, and during the day all surfaces are regularly cleaned. If this isn't mandatory where you live, you live in a country with bad hygiene laws. > We pay back of house staff as little as we can get away with to work every weekend and holiday in hellish conditions. This doesn't match where I live at all, FWIW.

> If this isn't mandatory where you live, you live in a country with bad hygiene laws.

Are drugs illegal in your country? Do people still do them?

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#108
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Political/funding decisions are part of the mix, but I don't think the daylight between highly funded and underfunded amounts to fundamental difference. Courts are extremely costly and/or low throughput. The vast majority of legal resolutions happen outside of courts, whether or not they even touch a court along the way. It just is not designed for efficiency. Court systems are designed to embody legal ideals (and im…

Courts don’t actually need to deal with vary many cases though. I suspect the average person needs to deal with the legal system for anything more complex than a speeding ticket less than once per decade. And as it turns out five minutes in front of a judge can easily handle: “The speed camera is showing a picture of a pickup truck, I drive an SUV.” It’s only a minute fraction of cases that take significant time to r…

So, looking at stats for England and Wales about 80% of homicide incidents result in one or more suspects being charged and a small number of those end up being acquitted (though it often takes some time for people to be charged). I guess that counts as significantly fewer, but wasn’t the impression I got from my initial reading of your post.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#109
post #5

Related to the opening of this article – it is interesting to see how one can get completely soured on certain products or experiences because, by virtue of their profession, they see the dirty underbelly of how things in that industry actually work. Someone who has read cruise contracts in detail will never want to go on one. Cooks with experience in commercial kitchens never want to eat at a restaurant again. Someo…

Most people who work in restaurant kitchens eat far more from restaurant kitchens, not less. I did for quite a few years and I’m still very happy to eat at any diner, drive through, or Michelin star restaurant.

I think the kitchen thing is mostly a myth. Although it's true that often the refrigerators used during meal service tend not to be as cold as they are supposed to be, because the door is constantly being opened.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#110
post #59

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…

> At least here in the UK, the court system does not have enough capacity Yeah, that's a political decision; the government is so anti-public service that it's cut it to disastrous levels. In many cases the cuts to legal aid are politically targeted at situations where the government was losing too many cases.

There's a fantastic piece in legal aid cuts in the LRB here, for anyone who's interested: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n11/francis-fitzgibbon/s...

It's obviously specific to the UK, but lots of the broader points are applicable anywhere (especially in the US, where the provisions whose loss he's writing about are provisions people have simply never had).

Arguably the most painful, cringe-inducing part is this one:

> The restrictions on legal aid are already leading to an increase in the number of people representing themselves in courts and tribunals. This has caused the Bar Council to publish A Guide to Representing Yourself in Court. It opens unpromisingly:

    >> The law can be very complicated. This guide explains things as clearly and as briefly as possible, but will only give you an overview of what you need to do if you have a civil law legal problem. This means we have had to miss bits out – bits that are likely to affect what the law would say about your own situation. So please do not rely on any of the examples used in this guide.
And also this very important observation:

> A civil case, let’s say something complex to do with a tenancy agreement, may well take twice as long in court with a self-represented litigant. The savings on lawyers’ already modest legal aid fees hardly count for much when the cost of running a single courtroom at the Old Bailey is estimated at £10,000 a day. [...] The conclusion must be that this legislation has nothing to do with saving money.

Post reply on HN