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

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#161

Post by david422 »

tzs wrote: post #148
JonChesterfield wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about helicopters? I definitely feel less willing to get on one after working near them.

I've never worked near helicopters, but they went on my "never take a job anywhere near these things" list after the third time I accidentally stuck my hands into the whirling blades of the ceiling fan in my living room.

I once had a chance to take a job related to navigation. I got significantly lost on the way to the interview. The job didn't work out, probably for the best.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#162

Post by JumpCrisscross »

lordnacho wrote: post #147
denton-scratch wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's "technical minutiae"; I was charged with an offence that I didn't commit. My advocate just took the trouble to read the Act that I was charged under. Given that the court knew I hadn't committed the offence I was charged with, it would certainly have been a miscarriage of justice to go on and convict me anyway, and I could have got it overturned on appeal.

You said you were speeding, right? But somehow the judge can't just say "ah right, looks like it's the wrong traffic statute that's been filed. Here's a fine for whatever it was that you actually did, you can just settle it here or we do a proper trial if you disagree". I mean of course we don't want people to be convicted of things they didn't do, but how is it ok for someone to get away with something they did do,…

> somehow the judge can't just say "ah right, looks like it's the wrong traffic statute that's been filed. Here's a fine for whatever it was that you actually did

We shatter the powers to bring and adjudicate charges. This creates inefficiencies, like this. But it also brings stability. (More practically, the judge may not have all the facts and circumstances relevant for citing the person.)

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#163

Post by afiori »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #69

Do note though that „legal fine print“ is similar to „React-Node.js-Mongodb“ boilerplate. Meaning that it sometimes makes sense to not have to start off at zero. Also complaining about long contracts is like saying „I don't like this program because the source code is too long“. Depending on the program, this might be a little capricious. Do you want lawyers to be „code golfing“?

If the contract is long but most of it are examples, explanations of terms, and references to where and how things are defined then length would not be a problem.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#164

Post by nurbel »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #145
denton-scratch wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, she got me off. I was acquitted. The copper that was standing duty as the prosecutor wasn't briefed. He had an afternoon's-worth of cases to present, and he wasn't qualified to argue a case. And either I couldn't be re-charged because double-jeopardy, or it just wasn't worth the effort. Just as icing on the cake, my advocate was a stunningly beautiful redhead.

> Just as icing on the cake, my advocate was a stunningly beautiful redhead. relevance?

Not saying that mentioning it that way is relevant here, but I'd wager that being good looking is an asset for a lawyer in court.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#165

Post by dimitrios1 »

bombcar wrote: post #158
nerdponx wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the main thing I learned from my commercial kitchen work is how similar they all are behind the scenes - the equipment and often skill of the line cooks at your local truck stop and the local fancy dining are closer than you expect.

The difference being the type of prep work being done, how good and consistent their ingredients and recipes are, and the presentation. Mechanically, yes they are all similar.

Unless of course, you are at a steakhouse, and they don't have a salmander broiler. Run away!

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#166

Post by rootusrootus »

grujicd wrote: post #17
paxys wrote: 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…

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.

The biggest tech enthusiasts I know are tech workers, though. It's the normies in my life that couldn't care less about this stuff. I've been a developer for 30 years and I love my home automation toys.

But I do make sure that all of it fails gracefully to 'normal' when something interrupts HA. My software can (and does, every day) lock the door. But the deadlock still has a key on the outside and a standard twist knob on the inside. All the light switches work just fine without their wireless connection. Thermostat is indistinguishable from an old school Honeywell if you ignore the Z-Wave logo. etc.

I do keep my hands on the wheel, though ;-). The whole 'dying in a ball of twisted metal' failure mode is pretty convincing.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#167

Post by rootusrootus »

krageon wrote: post #50
theK wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I presume the Alexa Argument ist against the service and not against automation. Running your whole life on self hosted home automation is Stil awesome and the way to go. Just ensure that data never leaves your home premises and you have enough resiliency.

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.

In what little experience I have with burglars, they aren't exactly the type who will be hacking your smart locks to get into your house. They're just going to break the door or window.

I like being able to check the status of my door locks remotely, and lock them if necessary. I like being able to make sure all locks and garage doors are secure automatically before bedtime. I'm not at all worried about someone sitting out in front of my house hacking the Z-Wave lock. By the time they figured it out, the neighbors will have already called the police anyway.

Connecting all my door locks (and garage doors too) to HA has measurably increased the security of my home.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#168

Post by rootusrootus »

michaelt wrote: post #87
sandos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Schlage doesn't know where I live, though, nor do they get any status updates from my home assistant. It isn't software that is the problem you're referring to, it's involving a third party unnecessarily.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#169

Post by bradstewart »

michaelt wrote: post #87
sandos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

But then what? Somebody still has to take the risk of actually burgling your house, getting passed the dog, alarm systems, lights, neighbors, etc.

And if they're going to do that, it's quite likely easier to pop a window lock than it is to buy a darknet database of API keys.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#170

Post by rectang »

krageon wrote: post #49
paxys wrote: 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…

> 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.

It's legend because of Down and Out in Paris and London, by George Orwell — a book from a different era.

https://archive.org/details/DownAndOutInParisAndLondonGeorge...

> Roughly speaking, the more one pays for food, the more sweat and spittle one is obliged to eat with it.

Post reply on HN