12

The dragon in question:

Here it is on a page:

Other links:
New York Times
Ars Technica

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] brax@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 weeks ago

Judge should be fired. Does the dragon somehow change the words on the page? If the watermarks affects the ability for screen readers, then fine. Otherwise, the judge is clearly unable to form an unbiased opinion and is willing to allow something irrelevant like appearance bias their cases.

[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

Proof that a degrees don’t determine intelligence.

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 2 points 4 weeks ago

Pretending this country has any professionalism whatsoever. Considering who is president and the shitty behavior of most politicians ... get fucked.

[-] sundray@lemmus.org 1 points 4 weeks ago

"Federal Judge Strikes Down Rule of Cool."

[-] kemsat@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

It’s not even cool. It’s cringe af.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

My only issue here is that it makes the text hard to read

[-] lurch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

I don't see the problem. It's from a company called "Dragon Lawyers". If it was idk "Flower Lawyers" they could put a flower with a tie or something. What is it with those snowflakes not being able to handle a decent watermark. It's not like it's somehow offensive.

[-] Eggyhead@lemmings.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

NGL, I think it looks really unprofessional. Imagine “flower lawyers” putting a tulip in a cartoon suit and giving it a menacing expression, it would look just as dumb. Likewise, a dragon could make for a much classier design if approached in a different way.

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Exactly. This isn't some little iconic flourish in the corner, footer, or the header. There's also some general rule of thumb with watermarks being flagrantly disregarded (keep it simple and monochromatic so it doesn't impact content legibility).

And even if I personally didn't have a problem with it, I would seriously question the competency of any law firm that mis-read their audience so dramatically. I can't imagine many courts looking at that and not having at least an immediate knee jerk reaction of "The hell is this? Are they fucking with us? Is this a joke?" which is an absurdly poor opener to your case as a lawyer.

If some firm got a headshot of the lawyer handling the case scowling and used that as the background of every page in their document they'd be laughed out of court. Just because "dragons are cool" or something doesn't make this any less silly.

Edit: The dragon icon in the footer is perfect if they wanted some visual flair to set them apart, and it's a relatively simple monochromatic design. It just makes it even more absurd that they didn't just use that and instead went for this detailed and visually busy picture.

[-] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 weeks ago

Damnit, I thought I had something good to post finally.

[-] unknown1234_5@kbin.earth 0 points 4 weeks ago

makes the text hard to read but otherwise I think it's fine

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 1 points 4 weeks ago

To be fair, making text hard to read somewhat defeats the entire purpose of text.

this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
12 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

16348 readers
445 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS