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

201–210 of 297 posts

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

#201

Post by lupusreal »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #200
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…

If a prisoner in America says they are being deprived of adaquate medical care, it's safe (for people generally, not the legal system) to assume it's true until proven otherwise.

Maybe they're healthy and are complaining about nothing, but if they aren't healthy then it is almost certainly the case that their medical care is substandard if it exists at all.

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

#202

Post by varun_ch »

msla wrote: post #171
adolph wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a good spot for the link to @patio11's "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names" So, as a public service, I’m going to list assumptions your systems probably make about names. All of these assumptions are wrong. Try to make less of them next time you write a system which touches names. https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-...

I get what he's doing, but some of these are not actionable: > People’s names are all mapped in Unicode code points. So... what? What do I do with this? My program has to use something to represent text, and since I fail to be a large multinational consortium, I can't invent my own character set and expect it to work. Also: > Confound your cultural relativism! People in my society, at least, agree on one commonly acc…

> Try to make less of them

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

#203

Post by lupusreal »

jacobgkau wrote: post #198
exe34 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The influence of cartoon dragons probably don't come close the influence of judges and lawyers talking to each other about what schools they went to, what country clubs they belong to, etc.

The breech of formality isn't being turned into a big deal because it might bias case outcomes; in that regard it's a rounding error washed out by innumerable more substantial sources of bias. It's being made into a big deal because formality is the wall between outcomes of cases and feelings of personal culpability for the people who are involved in that process. All of the formality and decorum make it easier for judges and lawyers to emotionally distance themselves from, very often, ruining peoples' lives.

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

#204

Post by mvdtnz »

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.

Has anyone at any point expressed otherwise? You're tilting at windmills.

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

#205

Post by wolfgang42 »

kstrauser wrote: post #79
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.

Our first user at one company was Richard Test. He had user ID 1001. Well-meaning people deactivated his account several times over the years because it looked fake to them. Sorry, Richard. I hope you were more amused than annoyed.

I’ve told your story about Mr. Test to several people over the years but I’ve never been able to remember where I got it from. I’m glad to have finally found it again, and thank you for the anecdote!

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

#206

Post by jacobgkau »

lupusreal wrote: post #203
jacobgkau wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The influence of cartoon dragons probably don't come close the influence of judges and lawyers talking to each other about what schools they went to, what country clubs they belong to, etc. The breech of formality isn't being turned into a big deal because it might bias case outcomes; in that regard it's a rounding error washed out by innumerable more substantial sources of bias. It's being made into a big deal becau…

Too many "rounding errors" adding up seems like a reasonable justification for not allowing even seemingly small sources of additional inconsistency. Slippery slope and all that.

Also, just because the other potential sources of bias you brought up exist doesn't mean new ones should be let into the process. I wouldn't be against solutions to remove the ones you mentioned. But I don't think you'd be entirely convinced that just allowing cartoon dragons would decrease bias by making people more empathetic.

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

#207

Post by sbarre »

kccqzy wrote: post #184
sbarre wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a point in everyone's career where they think their work is under constant threat of being stolen, copied, repurposed or otherwise used in a manner that will "steal your livelihood" or some thing.. Eventually you realize that a) no one cares, your work isn't _that_ unique and valuable and b) if someone wants to use your stuff, they will find a way.. The idea of a giant watermark behind text that can just be s…

I don't think that's true for the generation of people who grew up with the internet. "Information ought to be free" was ingrained into their systems. You either put something on the internet and expect that people will want it for free, or you don't put it on the internet and it's private.

Of course, there are edge cases to any scenario.

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

#208

Post by freejazz »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #200
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…

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

I think the poster was trying to make the point that in a "just" society, the story would be about how this individual is in this position and only has the choice of this attorney, and not instead about the purple dragon.

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

#209

Post by [deleted] »

generationP wrote: post #96
neilv wrote: 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)?

[deleted]

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

#210

Post by orly01 »

throwaway314155 wrote: post #94
saagarjha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree that the metaphor is good. The point is understood. However, the specific clothes that are considered OK in one context ore another are always changing and based in criteria that most of the time makes no sense.
Post reply on HN