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

171–180 of 230 posts

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#171

Post by rootusrootus »

krageon wrote: post #104
zoltar wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should probably update your threat model.

Why, is it out of date?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

My generic answer (not being the guy who replied to you) is to look at probabilities. AFAIK in most places theft from homes is opportunistic. Garage doors left open, for example, is extremely common. Thieves just drive around looking for them, it's such a reliable occurrence. Other times, they just try the door and walk in if it's unlocked and they think nobody is home.

I.e. automating your door locks may very well increase your actual security rather than reduce it, if it causes your doors to be locked more often than you'd remember otherwise.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#172

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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…

I get your point, but I think your initial conclusions are false. Each of those professions understands that the probability of risk is not 1. Their experience informs them that the risk is quite unlikely and therefore acceptable. They may have a heightened awareness to look for problems, but they don't stop exposing themselves to risk.

Your final conclusion is half-right: ignorance is bliss. But I think it's charitable to say everything is running on goodwill and duct tape. How many people really build systems based on goodwill? And duct tape implies somebody's seen the cracks and decided to patch them. I think everything is running on apathy and incompetence, sitting on the edge of a cliff, waiting for a stiff breeze; over time, the wind wins.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#173

Post by nonameiguess »

nerdponx wrote: post #109
runnerup wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's probably true in fast food, not all commercial kitchens.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#174

Post by snake_plissken »

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…

> "even if you did you wouldn't know what it meant in terms of law"

I think by far this is the biggest issue with EULAs and fine print: you really have no idea what anything means because it's all been crafted to cover legal concepts for which you have no prior knowledge.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#175

Post by otterley »

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.

At least with Alexa, you don’t need to talk to a device to manipulate smart-home devices. The mobile app has controls in it for you to use.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#176

Post by vinay_ys »

KarlKemp wrote: post #10
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…

One of those hypotheses is easily testable: bridges can collapse and you will hear about it. And yet.. it rarely happens? There was one in Italy and one in the US recently but, to a decent approximation, it’s a non-issue. Maybe we should have more trust in people and their work. Maybe our bridges are fine, our food is kosher, but what’s rotting on the inside is society, eaten alive by cynicism and distrust.

We know consumer software has bugs – that can make them unreliable, insecure and slow. They can become worse over time with more usage (more data/state accumulation). Unless we proactively find and fix them, they can continue to hurt users. We know this. We know critical software systems (medical, industrial, infra) have specially hardened software that are more reliable (but not yet secure).

We also know buildings, bridges etc – can weaken over time due to material deterioration, foundation shifting, earthquakes, machinery induced vibrations, excess load etc. and fail (fall apart). They need to be monitored for signs of structural stress/failure (cracks, leaks, tilts etc) and corrected/repaired or else they fail. When these maintenances are not done correctly, due to incompetence or corruption, they will fail, no doubt.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#177

Post by otterley »

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,…

Due to historical procedural abuses, modern societies insist that due process is as high a bar to prosecution as guilt of the offense for which a defendant is charged. The courts don’t want to be used as a forum for detective work, either. They just want to hear the case as presented, issue a judgment, and move on to the next case.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#178

Post by sircastor »

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…

>Either they're more effective than other lawyers, in which case we're not all equal under the law, or they're just as good as any other lawyer.

This is a problem with the nuance of law, not lawyers. The thing that finally clicked for me was talking with a lawyer at a electronics meetup. He was talking about some aspect of the law, and I realized that lawyers are just hackers. The system that they try to exploit is the law, rather than a computer.

Your money gets you a better hacker. The system is the same for everyone, but the interface is flexible.

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#179

Post by NationalPark »

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…

Here are the details of the vote if anyone else is curious (I was having trouble finding this on the official page): https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/117-2022/h33

335 - 97 - 2. Ds voted yea on party lines, Rs split 113 - 97 (plus 2 not voting)

Re: Justice Stevens reads the fine print

#180

Post by commandlinefan »

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.

I'm so relieved to hear you say that, because OP is spot on about anybody with any knowledge of how software is developed not trusting it to do anything right.
Post reply on HN