Live data from Hacker News

Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

arstechnica.com

91–100 of 297 posts

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#91
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I give Abubis a special pass, because they sell a business oriented version without the character. The true cost of using FOSS is you don't have any say in what the developer does.

Au contraire, FOSS allows you to fork and make modifications.

This just confirms OP’s point that "you don't have any say in what the developer does", since the only way to get your modifications in if the developer disagrees is to maintain your own version of the code.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#92

Also, sometimes we (developers) like to use wacky data for testing purposes. For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user, and my QA likes to upload cat pictures when testing uploads/images. We do it so it's obvious it's test data, and also we're lazy to think of more "real" data. Just say some users expect real(ish) data for testing. I had a client who was totally not happy when he saw Batman and Superman in th…

I've seen too many stories of placeholder text ending up in production... so I better make it worthwhile and include some Lovecraft quotes [0] because everyone needs more gibbering, cyclopean, eldritch adjectives in their lives. [0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft

Rust had something similar: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13871

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#93
post #75
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you were facing the death penalty would you pick a lawyer with purple hair and face tattoos to defend you?

I would if they were the best lawyer available? Their personal appearance is going to be pretty far down my list of concerns. See also Taleb’s Surgeon Paradox: https://medium.com/incerto/surgeons-should-notlook-like-surg...

The point is this might work for a surgeon but does not for an attorney. There are enough jurors who would be strongly biased against anyone arguing before them with purple hair and tattoos that it's exceedingly unlikely anyone with such an appearance ever could rise to the top of his field.

This would also be true in e.g. M&A. Even if Cravath's fieriest new partner looked like that I'd hesitate to hire him. Patent law might be an exception, but if I needed to actually go to court, WilmerHale's top guy would still be a liability. Even in a bench trial the judge could see it as disrespectful or look down on my representation because of it. You see my meaning here?

On the table, the surgeon's appearance has little or nothing to do with his ability; in court, a lawyer's appearance can be crucial.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the CEO invites you to dinner at a high end restaurant hopefully you change into something a bit nicer.

I'm sorry to disappoint

While the metaphor they chose may conflict with your personal experiences, you should still be able to do a good-faith reading of it and realize the underlying point.

But nah, probably better to nitpick over the details.

Would it make more sense if it was a funeral instead? A wedding?

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#95
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are into dragons are furries, it's not a literal term. Their furry subgroup is usually called scalies, which besides dragons and snakes include people who are into things like salamanders and other amphibians. I'm under the impression that such taxonomies are less important to these in-groups than whether you're just into the aesthetic or get off on it sexually as well.

Disney movies and 80s cartoons with talking animals really created a whole new subculture.

It certainly didn't start with 80s cartoons - anthropomorphized depictions of animals feature among the oldest written works. Aesop's Fables are 2500 years old, and the geographic dispersal of similar stories indicates that they originate even further back than that.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#96
post #51

I used to put a diagonal light gray huge "DRAFT" across pages of certain documents for which it was important that a working draft not be interpreted as final. What would've been a great use for the lawyer's dragon documents would be to clearly mark incomplete/unapproved drafts, for internal review only. Because, obviously, there was no way that you would accidentally submit a filing to the court with a huge purple c…

What about a header/footer saying "DRAFT" (ideally with the date and other things that would perhaps not fit on a watermark)?

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#97

- "The whole story would be far more humorous were it not from a case in which Perrone represented a woman who claims that she nearly died after being incarcerated and not given proper medical care. Perrone must now refile his complaint in that case—without the cartoon dragon." That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world. It's not as if the victim had the luxury of many choices of law firms, or any c…

The world has gone from substance to optics. You see it in every industry or field.

The legal system, for millienia, has always been a hodgepodge of very peculiar and esoteric rules about both substance and optics.

That's why lawyers exist, by the way. Outside of small claims court, laymen aren't equipped to navigate it without stepping on every possible rake imaginable.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#98
I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text.

Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

Re: Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits

#100

I think it's a mistake to have rules about filings. Maybe it's distracting, but if the filing has been done, there should be no reason for the court not to read it and make a decision based on the text. Procedure or order can't be more important than deciding cases.

Nah this is not the place to let folks get cutesy. If anything the standards should be strict and uniform.
Post reply on HN