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

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

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 297 posts

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

#191

Post by yallpendantools »

ryandrake wrote: post #169
daveslash wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned a long time ago to be very careful with mock, dummy, or test data.... because some people will just push anything to prod, take screenshots during your demo and paste it into the official documentation... you name it. I was giving a demo on how to set up multiple computers in a federated setup using Active Directory, ADFS, etc... I had about 5 VMs named things like Hank, Peggy, Bobby, Boomhauer, Bill, and a…

I've never really understood developers' apparent need to add cutesy stuff into their work product's test data, variable names, easter eggs and so on. Adding this stuff is all downside risk with no technical benefit that you can explain in a written postmortem that will be read by your boss's boss's boss. I mean, I get the motivation: You're working on a boring, dry, SeriousBusiness project, and have a creative itch…

> not stuff that's going out into the public!

Well, the problem is, in almost all the examples here so far, said stuff was not meant to go out into the public. If your customers end up seeing your product's test data and---heavens above!---variable names, there is an organizational issue that needs to be addressed, cutesy stuff or no cutesy stuff.

Also, isn't the point of QA testing just to throw all and any data to your system? Would you rather have a system that's tested against the eventuality that someone abuses UTF-8 in a textbox or a full SeriousBusiness system with zero whimsy and cutesy stuff? Someone's whimsy cutesy stuff is someone else's street address.

I think you just put a finger on why I absolutely loathe SeriousBusiness Banking Software: they were designed, implemented, and tested in a vacuum that even normal users end up putting a toe out of line that just breaks the assumptions of the spec. You have to be extremely average down to your name to peacefully coexist with them.

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

#192

Post by pwdisswordfishd »

lilyball wrote: post #183
vegadw wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a furry (Been for ~10 years, actually going to a big con in a week) but not a Therian. I too sometimes find some of the Therians a bit, uh, eccentric. But I think it's worth clarifying that most (I think) don't literally believe themselves to be part animal or werewolves or whatever, I think it's usually a spiritual thing, where they so strongly identify with the animal that it's part of how they act and see them…

Speaking as a trans therian, being a therian is kind of like being trans, except there's no cross-species HRT, and even fewer people will be willing to respect your identity. It is really hard to actually describe what this means, though. What's the actual distinction between "they so strongly identify with the animal" and "they are the animal, trapped in a human body"? Is it just the desire to tell us "ok but you kn…

Have you read "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?" by philosopher Thomas Nagel?

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

#193

Post by kccqzy »

duskwuff wrote: post #130
cookingmyserver wrote: post #77

Question - is watermarking legal filings even common? How about the law firm logos in the footer?

No; this filing is very unusual. Typical practice is for legal filings to be submitted in a standardized and very plain format.

And that standardized and plain format is simply typographically ugly.

The legal profession has done better. Just look at the opinions from the Supreme Court. Single spaced, nice typeface, good margin. Hallmarks of elegant typesetting and optimized for readability. Why aren't legal filings standardized based on this format?

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

#194

Post by Tade0 »

kmoser wrote: post #185
ryandrake wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never really understood developers' apparent need to add cutesy stuff into their work product's test data, variable names, easter eggs and so on. Adding this stuff is all downside risk with no technical benefit that you can explain in a written postmortem that will be read by your boss's boss's boss. I mean, I get the motivation: You're working on a boring, dry, SeriousBusiness project, and have a creative itch…

There's a saying: "Don't post anything online you wouldn't want grandma to see." The developer equivalent is "Don't use test data you wouldn't want the client [or boss] to see." This also applies to variable names, function names, and comments in code. For a project that involved creating fake companies and user records, I purposely choose to use characters from Star Trek, Star Wars, and the Simpsons for each of the…

That last bit is the main reason why I use odd or otherwise out of place test data[0]. Test data should never leak into production. Ideally there should be no means of that happening.

[0] Recent example: tissue sample, species: dog, tissue type: bone. Valid combination, just not present anywhere in prod.

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

#195

Post by timewizard »

eadmund wrote: post #61
perihelions wrote: post #37

- "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…

> That should be more offensive than cartoons. In a just world. If the complaint is true, then yes it is offensive and the results will be more serious than being required to refile the complaint without the watermark. The process of determining if the complaint is true or not is the justice system.

The court does not deal in "truth." It deals in civil cases with "more likely than not" or in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's also why the court prefers that people settle with each other outside of court processes. The court is a brutal cudgel. It has exceptional power to change outcomes but this use is almost never the ideal outcome for anyone involved.

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

#196

Post by crazygringo »

The problem doesn't even seem to be the dragon.

The problem is you don't "watermark" court filings in the first place.

That's generally not a thing. Court filings have strict requirements around formatting. This isn't any different from trying to file in Comic Sans or a 48-pt font.

Unfortunately this stunt is functioning as free publicity for this firm, because it's getting written about...

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

#197

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

indrora wrote: post #134
spiffytech wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to use Test T. Testerton until coworkers critiqued that "Test T" reminded them of male genitals.

One of the audio checks I've heard over the many conventions I've volunteered for is "Ice Ice Icicles, Cue Cue Cuticles, Test... Test... Testicles" with the final word pronounced like Hercules.

[sigh]

Now all I can think of is, "of course, you'll be playing the part of Sans Testicles."

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

#198

Post by jacobgkau »

exe34 wrote: post #164
lolinder wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The watermark is actively distracting from the enormously important work of reading the complaint in detail. This isn't a question of formality for formality's sake, it's a question of ensuring that the processes run smoothly so that justice can be done.

If he studied enough for law school and was able to work in a court for years before becoming a judge, I would assume his ADHD is under control and he is not that easily distracted.

Consciously, sure, but with some studies saying judges tend to rule differently on similar cases based on whether it's before or after lunchtime, do you really want to introduce more subliminal variables like decorations into the legal process?

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

#199

Post by hervature »

perihelions wrote: post #152
potato3732842 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To a normal person, sure. But the legal system ruins lives and deals in ruined lives every day. They don't blink twice at that stuff. A cartoon dragon on the other hand...

I remember reading a couple years back, when some judges in Louisiana were exposed systematically discarding legal petitions from incarcerated plaintiffs into trash cans, without reading them. Totally nulled out any access to courts, any possibility of justice, for thousands of people. https://www.propublica.org/article/louisiana-judges-ignored-... ( "Louisiana Judges Systematically Ignored Prisoners’ Petitions Witho…

Louisiana judges have their own rap sheet [1]. It is curious that they are the only state that does not have common law.

[1] - https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/09/judges...

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

#200

Post by pdabbadabba »

perihelions wrote: post #37

- "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 "outcome" is simply that the judge simply directed the attorney to stop using the dragon watermark. Whats the problem?

And, by the way, I'd recommend a bit less credulity about this kind of lawsuit. While there is no doubt that a lot of terrible things happen in America's prisons, it is also extremely common for inmates and former inmates to file exaggerated or even frivolous claims about the conditions of their confinement. It's understandable. Prisoners have a lot of time on their hands and being incarcerated sucks even if your rights are not actually being violated. Not saying which this is -- I have no way of knowing. I'm just pointing out that it's a mistake to take the allegations in a legal complaint at face value.

Post reply on HN