3 ms·

> This is the 2nd HN legal discussion I'm facepalming at in 24 hours. I can't help wondering if the flippant way HN generally discusses law would hold if there

> This is the 2nd HN legal discussion I'm facepalming at in 24 hours. I can't help wondering if the flippant way HN generally discusses law would hold if there was a legal site that tried opining on software engineering. It seems to me an irrational approach that doesn't hold for other subjects[1], and is just unconsidered. Hey there. I very much am not fond of citing the site guidelines normally; I understand people get worked up about stuff they feel is completely off-base. But given that I was one of the participants in the previous discussion that apparently made you similarly facepalm yesterday, and that I was similarly left clueless as to what flaws you saw in the actual merits of the arguments you were expressing your disdain at, I would suggest taking at least this one guideline to heart: "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." If you feel people are misinformed on some topic, please try to enlighten them with thoughtful explanations, instead of just expressing scorn and facepalming. It's not that people can't handle the scorn; it's just that it's unhelpful and unconstructive -- it certainly won't help anyone who is Wrong On The Internet become more correct.

refulgentis 2y ago
Facepalming isn't sneering -- in that loose of a definition, the above post itself is sneering. You are misrepresenting the thread: you made a reply demanding I enumerate any legal professionals who had their careers ruined due to parallel reconstruction, in response to me answering someone's question about why the 5th circuit decision yesterday mattered in practice. You also didn't attempt to follow-up at all, you weren't doing earnest inquiry, there wasn't a crowd of people. Just you, bringing up an unrelated topic to police me answering someone's question, via agreeing with them that it can still happen mechanically, but it won't in practice, because police / warrant judge / tech company / DA chain is diffuse enough that they can't effectively collude to hide from the trial judge they used a geofencing warrant. You've replied here a few times, as I note in my reply to one of the others: Nothing from me will be good enough for you on this topic, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I can't meet your expectations, I recognize that it is on me, not you. You read my posts as dishonest personal attacks, and its due to my cocksure verbiage coupled to my inability to definitively rule out the possibilities you raise.

refulgentis 2y ago

Facepalming isn't sneering -- in that loose of a definition, the above post itself is sneering. You are misrepresenting the thread: you made a reply demanding I enumerate any legal professionals who had their careers ruined due to parallel reconstruction, in response to me answering someone's question about why the 5th circuit decision yesterday mattered in practice. You also didn't attempt to follow-up at all, you weren't doing earnest inquiry, there wasn't a crowd of people. Just you, bringing up an unrelated topic to police me answering someone's question, via agreeing with them that it can still happen mechanically, but it won't in practice, because police / warrant judge / tech company / DA chain is diffuse enough that they can't effectively collude to hide from the trial judge they used a geofencing warrant. You've replied here a few times, as I note in my reply to one of the others: Nothing from me will be good enough for you on this topic, I'm afraid. I'm sorry I can't meet your expectations, I recognize that it is on me, not you. You read my posts as dishonest personal attacks, and its due to my cocksure verbiage coupled to my inability to definitively rule out the possibilities you raise.