Don't watermark your legal PDFs with purple dragons in suits • Hacker News Board

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

#291

Post by fennecbutt » Mon, May 05, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #256

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!

Imo there's no point watermarking legal text like that. Just a logo in footer or header is enough. Even for something that does need to be protected, watermarking is defunct and garish. Like qr codes.

And as a furry I appreciate their logo in general.

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

#292

Post by pdabbadabba » Wed, May 07, 2025, 3:40 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #289

pdabbadabba wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

> I would be in no way surprised if these or virtually any other allegations a person might make turned out to be true Sure. That does seemingly contradict the notion that I should take the filings with a grain of salt, though. I shouldn't be surprised if it's true, but I shouldn't think it's likely to be true? I think you need to pick one. What is your experience with these that is the basis of you sharing these opi…

Let's not waste effort debating what it means to be "surprised," which is beside the point. All I mean is that there are a lot of meritorious claims, because there genuinely is a lot of abuse. But as a fraction of the claims filed, this remains relatively small because of the extremely large number of unmeritorious claims that are actually filed.

As for my experience: I'm not sure what more information you want beyond what I have already given, except to add: my job in the federal courts included reviewing and advising judges on the small fraction of claims that made it through the triage stage I described earlier and might have had a decent chance of success, as well as occasionally reviewing claims that would otherwise have been filtered out at the triage stage to provide a second opinion.

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

#293

Post by freejazz » Wed, May 07, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

pdabbadabba wrote: post #292

freejazz wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would be in no way surprised if these or virtually any other allegations a person might make turned out to be true Sure. That does seemingly contradict the notion that I should take the filings with a grain of salt, though. I shouldn't be surprised if it's true, but I shouldn't think it's likely to be true? I think you need to pick one. What is your experience with these that is the basis of you sharing these opi…

Let's not waste effort debating what it means to be "surprised," which is beside the point. All I mean is that there are a lot of meritorious claims, because there genuinely is a lot of abuse. But as a fraction of the claims filed, this remains relatively small because of the extremely large number of unmeritorious claims that are actually filed. As for my experience: I'm not sure what more information you want beyon…

Thanks, I think that information is valuable.

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

#294

Post by JCattheATM » Wed, May 07, 2025, 10:35 PM UTC

seabass-labrax wrote: post #95

JCattheATM wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but it was 80's kids who started tuning in every week, nay, day, and forming emotional attachments with cartoon animals.

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

#295

Post by JCattheATM » Wed, May 07, 2025, 10:36 PM UTC

kstrauser wrote: post #81

JCattheATM wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No reason for disappointment, but you likely won't be invited back.

Um, this is highly region dependent. If it were a hot day, I would be comfortable interviewing with a CEO in nice shorts and a clean t-shirt, and fully expect that they'd dress similarly.

I'm not sure I'd be interested in interviewing with a CEO who can't be bothered to dress up. Hot weather is not a reason not too with AC and fabrics specifically for hot weather.

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

#296

Post by rexpop » Thu, May 08, 2025, 5:48 AM UTC

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #281

rexpop wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contempt findings are subject to the 1st amendment, but criminal speech acts are not protected by the 1st amendment. Arguably, the dragon exhibits a trespass against the dignity of the court itself.

“Dignity” is just racism in disguise.

Racism may be that which denies one's inherent human dignity based on ethnicity.

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

#297

Post by jacobgkau » Wed, May 14, 2025, 12:44 AM UTC

exe34 wrote: post #267

jacobgkau wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do you know for a fact that those rounding errors add up, or do they cancel out? I feel like all this bikeshedding is just helping to draw the attention off the more significant and well known biases.

Do you know for a fact that the rounding errors cancel out perfectly? Probably not.

Trying to make this about "more significant and well known biases" when all I'm arguing for is not introducing additional biases is a logical fallacy. And allowing cartoon watermarks in court documents would not help with the "more significant and well known biases" that you're more concerned about, anyway, so I have to wonder why you feel strongly enough that this should be allowed that you'd write off opposition as "bikeshedding."