Comment by smcl | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smcl | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah this was a little viral hit that went down well with boomers, but it was pretty sneaky. Everyone seems to be suggesting that if the kids these days just did what they were supposed to then they could have scored a crisp $50 and had all the avocado toast they ever wanted.

But where exactly was the text and how did the students miss it? These articles say it was "in the syllabus" but don't really go much further. I don't have access to the full syllabus but a snippet showing its immediate surroundings is available:

    ...
    objectives. As a result, skill-based
    courses in music may be exempt
    from Covid-related accomodations
    as a progression in skills must be
    obtained across the semester to be
    successfull in these course. Thus 
    (free to the first who claims; locker
    one hundred forty-seven; 
    combination fifteen, twenty-five,
    thirty-five), students may be 
    ineligible to make up classes and
    coursework beyond the specified 
    number of days as determined by 
    the instructor. Requests will be
    decided on a case-by-case basis with
    specific emphasis on the ability to
    achieve learning outcomes.

    Technology Support: If you have
    problems with your UTC email
    ...

So it was right near the "please contact the tech support department if you need tech support" message. Basically it's in some boilerplate that every course has and nobody reads because they want to actually do their work and don't expect some professor to try to score internet points by pranking them this way. NPR could've done exactly the same thing on that article by adding a clause to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy docs that are linked, but which we all probably ignored and just clicked "Agree and Continue" to view the article.

Sigh. I never had such luck.

During a first year university computer science course, students were told to line up and sign an agreement for access to department computer labs. Most of the students lined up, grabbed the paperwork when they reached the front of the queue, then promptly signed it. I decided to actually read the paperwork, which earned me the privilege of standing at the side until the task was complete. No sneaky clauses, for the better or the worse, in my humble opinion. I simply had the privilege of standing out.

Not that it really mattered. I walked away learning a different lesson since I already had access to their computer systems. I already asked for permission to access their systems, and was granted permission without doing the paperwork. For the most part, these agreements are intended to handle the typical case, and are meant to inform rather than be a rigid contract. (The irony: I consider trust as sacrosanct, so I often over comply with the rules.)

I've been publicly ridiculed a few times in my life for actually reading something before signing it. Once was a liability waiver for white water rafting. I was yelled at and it was shouted to the group "we got a reader here!!!". Cannot believe how indifferent people are to companies trying to take away their legal rights

Most people neither fundamentally understand (1) what a contract is or (2) what their options are regarding it.

Which is sad, because it's not rocket science.

PS: You should have yelled back "We have an illiterate guide here!" Anyone berating reasonable behavior deserves to be called out as an asshole.

Most people have the (incorrect) understanding that anything and everything in a contract is binding, to the point you could demand their first born child as a deposit for a lease and they'd shrug and say "it's in the contract, so I guess I have to".

Do these contracts actually stand up in court if people sign without reading them and being given due consideration? Can’t find the link but I recall years ago some EULA provisions were found to be unreasonable and void by the courts (US I think).

Yes. There are some rights you can't sign away (e.g. you can't sell yourself into slavery, or use your kidney as collateral), but otherwise yes.

Legally what's important is that you had the opportunity to read the contract before you agreed to it. In HN terms, as an example, you can't legally steal GPL'd code if you don't bother to cat LICENSE.md

Consideration is a hard requirement for a binding contract. Note however that consideration in contract law doesn't mean the same thing as in general usage: in contract law it means "something of value". So a contract promising to give someone a guitar is not enforceable, but a contract promising to sell a guitar for $100 is.

In general the likelihood that the parties have read the contract doesn't have any bearing on the enforceability of it. But most such contracts are also contracts of adhesion (roughly speaking a take-it-or-leave-it offer), and there are special rules for the enforceability of contracts of adhesion. The principle is that they can't be too surprising or too unfair. There's a fair amount of case law about where that line is (which I mostly don't know).

That's when you pull out a blue pen and start striking clauses and making edits, then ask them to initial.

Reciprocate when they want to read the changes you made, if their heads don't explode first.

I will try this the next time I sign something.

they'll say no, and chances are you already prepaid, so they'll take your payment and you'll be stuck somewhere for hours until everyone else is done

Has anyone had a locker at university? As 10000 students attend that university, I doubt the students had any idea where lockers even were.

It depends, at UIC, there were lockers in some of the classroom buildings that were in use. I’d guess that, yes, students would be aware of locker locations.

It's not just that it's embedded in some of the university boilerplate that the students probably have on all their syllabuses, it's that it doesn't read like anything, certainly not a promise of a free $50.

Is it a typo? A copy-paste error? Only knowing that "free to the first who claims" is part of a boomer gotcha for kids these days does that whole parenthetical make any sense to me.

Also, if I read that, I would assume that figuring out where I needed to go and actually taking time to do that would end up in nothing, so I wouldn't bother. I wouldn't expect to get rich off it, and the chance at (apparently) $50 wouldn't excite me enough for me to waste my time on it.

When i was in college, a chance at say 50$ would totally tempt me to spend a few hours hunting around campus ( Arizona State Uni for me ), i made ~$8 an hour at the time

Sure, it could be a fun thing to do (I'd have done a little treasure hunt for $50, too), but the professor's syllabus doesn't say it's $50 at all. "Free to the first who claims" -- claims what? free what? It isn't even a complete sentence, in the middle of boilerplate that's if anything exceedingly verbose. It doesn't parse like meaningful instructions. That's why I think it's a hokey gotcha, and not an actual sign of "people don't read instructions" (which we all instinctively know anyway??)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com