jsprinkles

11 ms·

61.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I apologize for insulting you. That wasn't my intention, and I do see now how it can be interpreted that way.
62.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Not all legal liabilities arise from crimes.
63.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
That child's doctors personally examined the child, have expertise to deal with the situation, and are aware of any details which are important. A HN commenter has not personally met either party, in most cases is not a lawyer so he does no
64.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
No, I agree, I just think relying solely upon a disclaimer is dangerous. I certainly respect your take more than my own, though, as you do it for a living, and I'm definitely paying attention.
65.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
You skipped right over where I said "in the general case," as I am certainly aware that there are exceptions as you are pointing out. Specific legal advice is almost universally dangerous. Specific technical discussion is almost universally
66.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I'll reiterate this for the benefit of context at this very location, but I have personal experience with a very similar scenario that I am not legally permitted to discuss; it was a situation of unsolicited advice resulting in consequences
67.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I have mentioned several times that I have firsthand involvement with unsolicited advice being given on the Internet resulting in consequences for people. I am simply not legally permitted to talk about it, nor will I say if I was the perso
68.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Couldn't agree more. What do you think about specifically mentioning legal advice?
69.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
It's anecdotal, so it doesn't carry much weight, but I have firsthand experience with comments such as those in that thread carrying legal consequences for people. I'm not legally permitted to discuss it beyond that.
70.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
True enough. I'm more concerned with the welfare of the person who blindly follows this advice, and the liability being created for people giving him advice is a close second.
71.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. That's fairly transparent in your reply. Multiple people have told you that you are giving legal advice, and suggested that you stop, and pointed out how I am correct, a
72.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
My valuable knowledge is that this discussion shouldn't be happening, because I've seen firsthand what an Internet comment can do legally, both to plaintiff and defendant. So yes, I would prefer it be shot down. I am not legally permitted t
73.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?
74.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Wow. Let me respond point by point: > You have merely engaged in ad hominem That's the second time I've been accused of ad hominem attacks in this thread, and the second time it's been flatly wrong. An ad hominem is me refuting your po
75.
Ask PG: Can we have a guideline regarding legal advice?
29 points by jsprinkles 14y ago|31 comments
76.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> nearly every perspective I give is qualified with a "may" or a "it appears" or some other similar language. That's called weasel wording. > Nowhere did I give a single bit of legal advice. Uh, your entire comment is how to respond
77.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
FYI, what I wrote is not an ad hominem argument, and "ad-hominem argument" is not an a.k.a. for "personal attack" (neither of which my comment is, for what it's worth).
78.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
In this case, there are legal repercussions and serious consequences to doing most of things on this page. This is stuff to talk about with a lawyer, not the fucking Internet, and the person I replied to is already giving frighteningly bad
79.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I wish your comment was the only one, frankly, and we could really use a "you are not a lawyer, stop pretending to be one" guideline. Edit: I've made a "Ask PG" to ask for just that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4055661
80.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
It concerns me that I'm attacked personally for advocating for common sense when it comes to the law. Being sued? Shut up. Don't post to HN. Don't comment on the case. Don't challenge the other party to Quake 3 on Twitter. Don't give people
81.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I appreciate what you're doing, but you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go -- something you really shouldn't predict. By putting the words "this isn't legal advice" before your com
82.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
You want to completely buy in to one side's story without any context or response from the other side, then start a Kickstarter to fund a legal assault upon that company? Really? Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently,
83.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Gazelle is awful, and far too many private trackers use it.
84.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Why create yet more problems for yourself?
85.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
I work with two people who did.
86.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> Please stop. No. I will not silence my opinion because you disagree. Although your comment is almost devoid of insight, I would infer that you're implying I'm being obtuse regarding the role of computer science in making my stuff bett
87.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> customers can go fuck themselves. Oh, dear Lord. This comment makes me hurt. Your salary from Bank of America comes from customers -- even if you're paid from investment, the investment is only there because Bank of America has custom
88.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
Theory is thinking about how to build a self-driving car, and the algorithms and considerations that would be required to do so, and perhaps writing a paper about how best to go about doing it. Practical is writing code, running wire, and t
89.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> Software engineering 'ideas' regarding modeling and testing have gone way overboard. Maybe, but he also said specs and maintenance.
90.
by jsprinkles 14y ago
> As an example, take Google's self-driving cars. Would you say the meat of their body of work theoretical? No.

More ›