4 ms·

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such

I appreciate the HN desire to link to the source, but as I reader I'd really appreciate submitters link to a good summary/analysis for dense subject matter such as court documents or scientific papers. Ideally they'd chose a summary that itself links to the source.

jakewalker 12y ago
The opinion came out very recently (within the past hour), so there is not likely a good summary or analysis available yet. Seems reasonable for OP to want to spread the news without waiting for a news story.
- examancer 12y ago
  After writing my comment I went looking for a summary/analysis and discovered how recent the news is. There was really nothing out there. Speed of dissemination definitely trumps ease of reading, so, yeah, I was wrong. The OP clearly should have linked to the source here.
  - rdl 12y ago
    I saw it from one of the attorneys on the appeal, and even she was saying she'd have to more fully read it to explain it, so I figured I'd just post. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-rev... is the first article.
    - matznerd 12y ago
      Ars is generally a pretty good source for these types of things.
dalke 12y ago
I prefer the direct link. The document isn't dense. I found it pretty straight-forward, actually. It isn't short, but unless you are a member of the "tl;dr" contingent, the gist is pretty easy to discern. The trick is that things like "Count one charged Auernheimer with conspiracy to violate CFAA § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii)" translate to "Count one charged Auernheimer for breaking a law" and things like "See Perez, 280 F.3d at 329; see also Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 281-82 (citing Hyde, 225 U.S. at 356-67)" are references that you don't need to resolve in order to understand. It also helps if you can translate things like "It is far from clear that this Court has ever “adopted” this test. We have mentioned it only once." into "oh no you didn't".
- wpietri 12y ago
  We are all members of the tl;dr contingent for most things. In an age of information surplus, it's a survival skill.
  - dalke 12y ago
    By "tl;dr" I refer to the attitude that rejects reading something solely based on its length. That is not a good survival skill, any more than rejecting all but candy is a good survival skill in an age of calorie surplus.
    - hmsimha 12y ago
      There's a difference in that analogy, though. You don't want to overconsume calories; you do want to consume as much information as possible. If we were trying to maximize calorie intake over time, corn syrup would probably be the winning route.
      - dalke 12y ago
        That's an interesting observation. I don't agree with it though. You suggest that one should consume information up to one's limits. When then does one create information? Even if that information already exists - quoting Westheimer, 'A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.' - the process of creating the knowledge is good practice for when one needs to create new knowledge, and for evaluating the validity of existing knowledge. I do think your second sentence is apropos, but in a different way than you intended. Corn syrup, while calorie rich, provides neither protein nor necessary vitamins and minerals. For that matter, reading summaries is often information poor, compared to the underlying material.
- mpclark 12y ago
  Heavens no! I'd much rather have a good summary than dive into documents written for domain specialists by other domain specialists. For legal documents, research studies, academic papers and the like the cognitive load associated with wading through the original usually by far outweighs the marginal return. The caveat is, of course, that one must be careful with one's choice of summariser.
moron4hire 12y ago
It's actually quite well-written. I was afraid of the same thing, but found the document quite easy to understand.
njharman 12y ago
Forget summarizing the source. How about just explaining who weev is?
- fyrabanks 12y ago
  Hacker, troll, borderline-criminal harasser. He's got his own wikipedia...
lambda 12y ago
As a reader, I far prefer this to any kind of summary. This was well written, thoughtful, and thorough. I can't imagine any value that any summary would have added to this, unless I were just hoping to skim it over my lunch break. And I greatly prefer to read one well written, thoughtful, thorough article in a day, then a dozen summaries which inflame the senses without providing any particularly useful information.

jakewalker 12y ago

The opinion came out very recently (within the past hour), so there is not likely a good summary or analysis available yet. Seems reasonable for OP to want to spread the news without waiting for a news story.

examancer 12y ago
After writing my comment I went looking for a summary/analysis and discovered how recent the news is. There was really nothing out there. Speed of dissemination definitely trumps ease of reading, so, yeah, I was wrong. The OP clearly should have linked to the source here.
- rdl 12y ago
  I saw it from one of the attorneys on the appeal, and even she was saying she'd have to more fully read it to explain it, so I figured I'd just post. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-reverses-hackertroll-weev-conviction-and-sentence/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/appeals-court-rev... is the first article.
  - matznerd 12y ago
    Ars is generally a pretty good source for these types of things.

dalke 12y ago

I prefer the direct link. The document isn't dense. I found it pretty straight-forward, actually. It isn't short, but unless you are a member of the "tl;dr" contingent, the gist is pretty easy to discern. The trick is that things like "Count one charged Auernheimer with conspiracy to violate CFAA § 1030(a)(2)(C) and (c)(2)(B)(ii)" translate to "Count one charged Auernheimer for breaking a law" and things like "See Perez, 280 F.3d at 329; see also Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 281-82 (citing Hyde, 225 U.S. at 356-67)" are references that you don't need to resolve in order to understand. It also helps if you can translate things like "It is far from clear that this Court has ever “adopted” this test. We have mentioned it only once." into "oh no you didn't".

wpietri 12y ago
We are all members of the tl;dr contingent for most things. In an age of information surplus, it's a survival skill.
- dalke 12y ago
  By "tl;dr" I refer to the attitude that rejects reading something solely based on its length. That is not a good survival skill, any more than rejecting all but candy is a good survival skill in an age of calorie surplus.
  - hmsimha 12y ago
    There's a difference in that analogy, though. You don't want to overconsume calories; you do want to consume as much information as possible. If we were trying to maximize calorie intake over time, corn syrup would probably be the winning route.
    - dalke 12y ago
      That's an interesting observation. I don't agree with it though. You suggest that one should consume information up to one's limits. When then does one create information? Even if that information already exists - quoting Westheimer, 'A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a couple of hours in the library.' - the process of creating the knowledge is good practice for when one needs to create new knowledge, and for evaluating the validity of existing knowledge. I do think your second sentence is apropos, but in a different way than you intended. Corn syrup, while calorie rich, provides neither protein nor necessary vitamins and minerals. For that matter, reading summaries is often information poor, compared to the underlying material.
mpclark 12y ago
Heavens no! I'd much rather have a good summary than dive into documents written for domain specialists by other domain specialists. For legal documents, research studies, academic papers and the like the cognitive load associated with wading through the original usually by far outweighs the marginal return. The caveat is, of course, that one must be careful with one's choice of summariser.

moron4hire 12y ago

It's actually quite well-written. I was afraid of the same thing, but found the document quite easy to understand.

njharman 12y ago

Forget summarizing the source. How about just explaining who weev is?

fyrabanks 12y ago
Hacker, troll, borderline-criminal harasser. He's got his own wikipedia...

lambda 12y ago

As a reader, I far prefer this to any kind of summary. This was well written, thoughtful, and thorough. I can't imagine any value that any summary would have added to this, unless I were just hoping to skim it over my lunch break. And I greatly prefer to read one well written, thoughtful, thorough article in a day, then a dozen summaries which inflame the senses without providing any particularly useful information.