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

271–280 of 297 posts

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

#271

Post by astura »

registeredcorn wrote: post #157
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…

We had a Dev environment that showed a doge meme on the auth page that had been there for like...7 years or something? "So auth. Much secure. Wow." etc. Every other environment had standard boiler plate corporate logo + whatever product name. We kept the meme stuff in Dev just so you could be visually reminded , "Oh right, this is the crazy broken one." Queue 7 years later, an emergency where we just had to impress a…

Cue, not queue.

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

#272

Post by astura »

indrora wrote: post #137
mjgoeke wrote: post #133

That's not a "watermark", keep it to 5% opacity. This is around 13% and very distracting.

There's a color, gray95, that is the recommended black and white color for watermarks in a few books I've read on the topic. Honestly the best way to do it right is to ask the court (politely) what their stated requirements for watermarking are and if you get shrugs, you go for the bare minimum.

You don't watermark legal documents that you are submitting to a court.

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

#273

Post by arresin »

hk__2 wrote: post #91
radlad wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could fork and then auto merge anything that doesn’t conflict with the specifically weird cartoons these people are strangely attached to.

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

#274

Post by chiph »

registeredcorn wrote: post #157
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…

We had a Dev environment that showed a doge meme on the auth page that had been there for like...7 years or something? "So auth. Much secure. Wow." etc. Every other environment had standard boiler plate corporate logo + whatever product name. We kept the meme stuff in Dev just so you could be visually reminded , "Oh right, this is the crazy broken one." Queue 7 years later, an emergency where we just had to impress a…

We ran into the same thing back in the dot-com era. The development group had a sample customer set up as "Master Bait & Tackle", which had an outdoor outfitter theme. With items like fishing reels, lures, backpacks, etc. Entirely innocent (apart from the name).

Sales & Marketing got wind of how consistent the data was in it and wanted a copy they could use in presentations and for trade-show exhibits. We all said absolutely not. But they went around us and got a copy anyway.

It did not go well when a potential customer made a comment about the name during a demo.

Lesson learned. Always use the word "Test" in your test data. Always.

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

#275

Post by ranger_danger »

arresin wrote: post #273
hk__2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could fork and then auto merge anything that doesn’t conflict with the specifically weird cartoons these people are strangely attached to.

Be the change you wish to see

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

#276

Post by ranger_danger »

ghssds wrote: post #8
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…

Your client needs to remove the broom stucks in their ass. Your story reminds me of the uptight people angry about the Anubis' catgirl.

Would you say the same to the judge in Dragon Lawyer's case?

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

#277

Post by devilbunny »

bluGill wrote: post #127
watwut wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that job interview in the fancy restaurant is the first "unprofessional" step in this chain. The place to conduct serious interviews is called the office.

At my company when we bring you onsite for an interview takes you to lunch. The person who takes you to lunch is not allowed to talk to the people making the hiring decisions. You can thus talk about whatever you want. It is a relaxing situation where you can safely press about what work is like. If you talk about something that in an interview is illegal (likely family) it doesn't matter because that person doesn't…

Why would interviewees believe you? I have heard such claims before and assumed they were false and treated lunch as just continuing the interview while doing something we all had to do anyway. If the interviewee raised numerous red flags, the interviewer would absolutely be sworn to silence? Even informally?

I don’t work in tech.

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

#278

Post by pdabbadabba »

freejazz wrote: post #258
pdabbadabba wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, then let me clarify: I know that there are a lot of abuses in the U.S. prison system. It's a national embarrassment, and I would be in no way surprised if these or virtually any other allegations a person might make turned out to be true. It is also true, however, that there is a huge number of meritless suits regarding prison conditions.

I used to work in the federal court system so I've seen both sides of this close up. I've worked on cases (many of them) where prisoners' allegations of hideous abuse were extremely credible including cases where the plaintiffs went on to win at trial, get sizable settlements, etc. At the same time, our courthouse had an entire office dedicated to triaging the enormous number of suits filed by prisoners, only a small percentage of which had any merit. (And this office is, by and large, staffed with very compassionate attorneys who do that job because they're interested in helping prisoners--these are not, on average, people who want, or have any incentive, to just sweep things under the rug.)

That's why I believe both that our prison system is rife with abuse and that the average prisoner complaint has a good chance of being bogus.

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

#279

Post by tiltowait »

perihelions wrote: post #269
willcipriano wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judges in PA were just selling kids to private prisons. "Ciavarella disposed thousands of children to extended stays in youth centers for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building.[3] After a judge rejected an initial plea agreement in 2009,[4][5] a federal grand jury returned a 48-count indictment.[6] In 2010, Conahan pleaded guilty to one count of racketeer…

Thousands of innocent kids in cages, and Mr. Biden actually pardoned that judge as a "nonviolent offender". I think I'll never forget that particular pardon, the obscenity of it. It, just, inverts the ideals behind the reform movements, turns them upside-down in mockery. His constituents petitioned him about the crooked jails, and... Biden heard them; and freed the jailer.

Pardons like that one really fuel the conspiracy theories about how many executive actions in the Biden admin, particularly toward the end, were really carried out by the former President.

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

#280

Post by fsckboy »

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.

and since HN is less serious than a court, when I write a comment to you here, surely you agree that there is no justifiable reason the people that run this site should not allow me to purple-dragon-watermark my comments. what's the matter with you paul/dang, don't have your adhd under control?
Post reply on HN