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

251–260 of 297 posts

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

#251

Post by Izkata »

OJFord wrote: post #145

Is there a term for this (bad) style of writing or linguistic device where you mention the thing ('purple dragon') in the title/first paragraph and then really force a synonym in the second? > Federal Magistrate Judge Ray Kent of the Western District of Michigan was unamused by a recent complaint (PDF) that prominently featured the aubergine wyrm . (Emphasis mine.)

Using modern terminology, I think it's actually a drake, not a wyrm. Wyrm and dragon were only a synonyms centuries ago, nowadays dragon is an umbrella term for those and more.

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

#252

Post by Cerium »

Atreiden wrote: post #189
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…

If dummy data ever proposes a "technical risk" to your projects, I might argue you're using the term wrong. Variable names are different, and I'll give you that, but creating humorous dummy data in lower environments shouldn't ever be an issue. Injecting a little fun legitimately helps overcome despair, and the harder and more difficult your project/company is, the more it needs a dose of lightheartedness. No matter…

I read the comment to mean that we have enough technical risk that we don't need more general risk. This stuff adds risk. As I have heard: "do you want to read your joke in a courtroom for a non technical audience?" - in some fields more so than others, but there is always a risk that something will go horribly wrong, your system will be involved and your code shows up either directly or as a side effect of discovery.

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

#253

Post by happyopossum »

bonyt wrote: post #241
crazygringo wrote: post #196

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...

> Court filings have strict requirements around formatting. This isn't any different from trying to file in Comic Sans or a 48-pt font. For example, the Northern District of California rules require a 12-point standard proportional-width font, with no more than 28 lines per page 8½ inch by 11 inch white paper with numbered lines. This is their way of requiring double-spacing and enforcing the page limits[1]. BUT - Th…

Common paper size definitions would indicate that 8 1/2x11 is portrait, while 11x8 1/2 is landscape, so they could reasonably reject a landscape filing on that basis.

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

#254

Post by happyopossum »

bitwize wrote: post #231
hsbauauvhabzb wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the purpose of the format requirement? To enable ocr or to just prevent silly games like this one?

Both to prevent silly games and for similar reasons as the "no brown M&Ms" rider in Van Halen's venue contracts: if you read and followed the instructions in detail for small things like formatting, you read and followed the instructions for the things that actually matter as well.

Umm, no - courts aren’t testing the reading comprehension of lawyers.

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

#255

Post by dfc »

vkou wrote: post #221
dfc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think contingencies are common in cases like this? The lawyer gets paid iff their client wins.

In that case, you not only have to convince a judge that your case has merit, you also need to convince the lawyer. They aren't going to work on contingency if they think your case is frivolous.

Agreed...and if they think there is a chance of winning they are going to work on the case. That seems obvious? I think you always need to convince a judge your case has merit, right? Or else they just 12b6 you or whatever the equivalent is...

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

#256

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

fennecbutt wrote: post #239

Headline umderstates the issue. The logo in the corner is fine, but this watermark covers the entire page, behind all the text. I wouldn't even call it a watermark by this point, it's a fucking background. Now it just needs to be tiled.

Read thru hundreds of comments, and yet your comment is the only one that comes close to actually rendering an opinion on the design of the watermark.

Someone did comment about the appropriate color to be used (grey63?) but i haven't really heard from experts on what would be good outcome, if this was any other forum and watermarking was still acceptable.

Would love to hear such thoughts!

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

#257

Post by wolfgang42 »

lilyball wrote: post #246
pwdisswordfishd wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I have now! Thanks for the recommendation. Consciousness, the subjective experience of what it is like to be something, is very difficult to explain except insofar as there are similar shared experiences that one can make analogy to. I certainly agree with Nagel that entities in human bodies are not equipped to understand the subjective experience of someone whose primary means of sensing the world is through echoloc…

I’ve bumped into a robot bat, though that’s not quite the same thing. (They made a userscript to change CAPTCHA boxes to say “I am not a human”.)

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

#258

Post by freejazz »

pdabbadabba wrote: post #243
tehjoker wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy that people treat prisoner complaints from the American gulag as if everyone is just whining. We have some of the worst conditions in the developed world.

If you think I said that, I suggest you read my comment again.

You do come off as very dismissive. It's kind of like JAQing off. You're not "just asking questions" you're "just offering suggestions." The suggestion here being that everyone take these kind of allegations with a grain of salt. I guess it's not necessity that those views conflict with each other, but they definitely do not seem congruous.

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

#259

Post by yesco »

happyopossum wrote: post #253
bonyt wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Court filings have strict requirements around formatting. This isn't any different from trying to file in Comic Sans or a 48-pt font. For example, the Northern District of California rules require a 12-point standard proportional-width font, with no more than 28 lines per page 8½ inch by 11 inch white paper with numbered lines. This is their way of requiring double-spacing and enforcing the page limits[1]. BUT - Th…

Common paper size definitions would indicate that 8 1/2x11 is portrait, while 11x8 1/2 is landscape, so they could reasonably reject a landscape filing on that basis.

That's why you print it upside-down instead, they would never suspect a thing!

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

#260

Post by eeiaeaa »

cperciva wrote: post #32
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

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…

For example, I like to put Batman as a dummy user I can't remember the details, but I've heard a story multiple times about a fake-sounding name being used in testing -- I think US military payroll? -- and causing problems when a real person had that name. Can anyone here remember this? In any case, "batman" is just about plausible enough that it could be real. I tend to use names like "Mr. Testy Testalicious" which…

I used to use Testy Tester until one of my coworkers commented that she was acquainted with the Tester family, and there were quite a few of them in the area. These days I usually have completely separate systems for testing, but even there I use something like Zzzperson for test data.
Post reply on HN