3 ms·

Not a disease at all. Playing around with objects and concepts that you don't understand is perhaps the very definition of "hacking". Why dabble in things that

Not a disease at all. Playing around with objects and concepts that you don't understand is perhaps the very definition of "hacking". Why dabble in things that you don't understand? Why treat the world as if it were one big toy? Why pretend that duct tape is a reasonable substitute for the correct part, as designed by an expert? Because it's fun! And educational. As many people know, a good way to learn how to do things correctly is to begin by doing them wrong, and then let experience, the laws of nature, trial and error, the advice of friendly, expert onlookers, and the guidance of your peers guide you toward something better. Obviously you can take this too far. There's a difference between armchair lawyering and actually practicing law, just as there's a difference between armchair quarterbacking and actually playing quarterback. But every quarterback started out as someone having fun, and every expert, trained lawyer got their start by being an inexpert, untrained, full-of-crap college sophomore with an interest in the law. Hacker News isn't a law firm. Its knobs aren't connected to anything vital. [1] Why not fiddle with them? You might learn something. --- [1] How would you recognize someone on HN who probably is a real lawyer, or law student? They take pains to explicitly disconnect the knobs before they frob them, by saying something like: "I am a lawyer, but this is not sound legal advice. Blah blah blah highly meaningful defensive boilerplate blah blah blah." Usually the disclaimer is three times longer than the post itself.

tokenadult 18y ago
How would you recognize someone on HN who probably is a real lawyer, or law student? Often enough, by their very reluctance to contribute opinions in threads that are discussing legal issues. I AM a lawyer (although I'm not particularly experienced about many of the legal issues that show up most on HN). I often don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling I have too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion. Someone who spouts off an opinion instantly after reading an "Ask HN: . . . ?" post is, as you correctly suggest, almost certainly not a lawyer.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  That's exactly been my experience with lawyers, in the many times I've talked to them. They don't give you an opinion until you pay them for it.
  - TJensen 18y ago
    Based on the previous comment, I would call that ethics. Not providing an opinion on something he doesn't know about, especially coming as somebody who could very well be an expert, it something to be lauded, not ridiculed.
    - mattmaroon 18y ago
      It's both ethics and covering their own ass. Giving legal advice entails risk for the attorney. As such it's something they don't do without careful consideration and payment to offset the risk.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  I often don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling I have too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion. Which is very sensible of you, of course. As a professional, you have to act with a certain degree of professional detachment and care. Your words matter in ways that mine do not. You charge money for your words, because they have a power and authority that mine lack. But what you seem to be saying is that we, the general public, have a choice: We can discuss legal issues amongst ourselves. We can not discuss them at all. Or we can abandon the discussion of legal issues to lawyers and people who can afford lawyers. Does anybody really think it would be a good idea for the public to just be quiet and leave the issues of IP law to credentialed experts? Isn't that just how abominations like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act happened in the first place? It turns out that large media companies can afford to hire a lot more experts than the EFF can. And that just because a lawyer understands more about law than you do doesn't mean he's more inclined to use that power in your interest than you are. Lawyers understand the law. But citizens make the law (very indirectly, of course). And citizens suffer the consequences of laws. So it's our job to care about laws. Even if our mental models of how they work are a little... rough. (Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics. This is why so many people love Larry Lessig in the first place -- the guy writes books for non-lawyers.)
  - tokenadult 18y ago
    Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics. A lot of lawyers do volunteer time and effort to educate the general public about the law, and I am one of them. I write mostly about the law of parental freedom in education, my chosen legal specialty, and I welcome questions about that area of law from anyone. I think people are more accepting of expert opinion about quantum mechanics than they are of expert opinion on the law because most people have preexisting lay opinion about the law before they seek advice. But, yes, we should all be talking with one another in a democratic republic as the law-making powers revise laws.

tokenadult 18y ago

How would you recognize someone on HN who probably is a real lawyer, or law student? Often enough, by their very reluctance to contribute opinions in threads that are discussing legal issues. I AM a lawyer (although I'm not particularly experienced about many of the legal issues that show up most on HN). I often don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling I have too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion. Someone who spouts off an opinion instantly after reading an "Ask HN: . . . ?" post is, as you correctly suggest, almost certainly not a lawyer.

mattmaroon 18y ago
That's exactly been my experience with lawyers, in the many times I've talked to them. They don't give you an opinion until you pay them for it.
- TJensen 18y ago
  Based on the previous comment, I would call that ethics. Not providing an opinion on something he doesn't know about, especially coming as somebody who could very well be an expert, it something to be lauded, not ridiculed.
  - mattmaroon 18y ago
    It's both ethics and covering their own ass. Giving legal advice entails risk for the attorney. As such it's something they don't do without careful consideration and payment to offset the risk.
mechanical_fish 18y ago
I often don't hazard an opinion at all, because the thread leaves me feeling I have too little sure knowledge of the relevant facts to offer an opinion. Which is very sensible of you, of course. As a professional, you have to act with a certain degree of professional detachment and care. Your words matter in ways that mine do not. You charge money for your words, because they have a power and authority that mine lack. But what you seem to be saying is that we, the general public, have a choice: We can discuss legal issues amongst ourselves. We can not discuss them at all. Or we can abandon the discussion of legal issues to lawyers and people who can afford lawyers. Does anybody really think it would be a good idea for the public to just be quiet and leave the issues of IP law to credentialed experts? Isn't that just how abominations like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act happened in the first place? It turns out that large media companies can afford to hire a lot more experts than the EFF can. And that just because a lawyer understands more about law than you do doesn't mean he's more inclined to use that power in your interest than you are. Lawyers understand the law. But citizens make the law (very indirectly, of course). And citizens suffer the consequences of laws. So it's our job to care about laws. Even if our mental models of how they work are a little... rough. (Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics. This is why so many people love Larry Lessig in the first place -- the guy writes books for non-lawyers.)
- tokenadult 18y ago
  Of course, it would be great if the public had better grounding in legal education, just as it would be great if we all knew more quantum mechanics. A lot of lawyers do volunteer time and effort to educate the general public about the law, and I am one of them. I write mostly about the law of parental freedom in education, my chosen legal specialty, and I welcome questions about that area of law from anyone. I think people are more accepting of expert opinion about quantum mechanics than they are of expert opinion on the law because most people have preexisting lay opinion about the law before they seek advice. But, yes, we should all be talking with one another in a democratic republic as the law-making powers revise laws.