Phoenix Framework dockerfile

Phoenix Framework dockerfile

clone phoenix-docker

git clone && cd phoenix-docker

build image

sudo docker build -t phoenix-docker .

run container

sudo docker run -it -p 4000:4000 –name server phoenix-docker

start container

sudo docker start server

container bash

sudo docker exec -it server bash

start phoenix server

elixir –detached -S mix phoenix.server


Original URL:

Original article

Bad Lawyering, Not Bad Forms

As Robert Ambrogi has been reporting, the folks over at Avvo announced that they were launching a new legal forms offering that would compete with LegalZoom. Mr. Contract himself, Ken Adams, reviewed an Avvo form and concluded that Avvo was another of the “hack vendors” that was “foisting crap” and “dreck” on consumers. And Avvo responded to Adams’s “silliness” in a way that suggests to me that we are witnessing two different debates. Both debates are worth exploration.

Legal Forms are a Bad Idea

Avvo wants to debate the merits of consumer-facing legal forms. The basic outline of this debate is fairly well settled:

Should lawyers create legal forms? Yes. Anytime that a lawyer repurposes old product–which happens all the time–they are making the case for some form of document assembly or automation. If you have a good indemnification clause it is plain stupid to try to draft a new one from scratch.

Should consumers use legal forms? Sometimes. We generally don’t have lawyers around when we are filling out form contracts to lease homes, buy cars, or license software. When the need is straightforward, most people are sufficiently adept at filling out basic forms. Even if they aren’t, lawyers are cost prohibitive.

Isn’t there a danger? Sure. Not every situation is straightforward. The untrained person is more likely than the trained person to make a costly error.

This is where the debate normally heats up. The question becomes where to draw the line. At what point is the provider of the form handing the consumer something too likely to lead to self-inflicted harm. Avvo was prepared to respond to the standard criticisms.

First, they point out that their target audience is people who are already inclined to use forms rather than a lawyer. Second, they explain that the purpose of their free forms is to “upsell” consumers– i.e., convince the consumers to pay for assistance from a lawyer through Avvo Legal Services.

At worst, Avvo is providing a free service to someone who was not going to pay for a lawyer under any circumstances. The implicit suggestion seems to be that their free service is better than what the consumer would have otherwise done or, at least, just as good as the forms that the consumer would have paid some small amount for at LegalZoom.

Avvo not only concedes the common criticism of forms–most people would be better off if they consulted an attorney–its business model is based on convincing consumers of that premise. Avvo’s CEO Mark Britton referred to DIY as a “virus” and is adamant that you cannot compare mere forms to the bespoke work product of a trained lawyer:

“This is just silliness. The point that is being missed here, is that you have over 50 percent of people who have money and are potential clients but who are not using lawyers. You have this explosion of DIY that is like a virus. The question is how do you get in front of those people who want to do it themselves. Even though they say they want to do it themselves, they don’t really mean that. You cannot compare a bespoke product from a lawyer that will cost you thousands of dollars to a product that is an entry-level product designed for people who are doing everything they can to avoid a lawyer. Let’s get them that product and then start the conversation from there.”

The debate that Avvo is engaged in:

1. Whether the provision of free forms is more likely to convince consumers to use lawyers

2. Whether consumers who are not going to pay for a lawyer under any circumstances are better off with access to free forms

Avvo answers in the affirmative to both.

Forms are Fine, Lawyers are Bad

Ken Adams is having an entirely different debate. He is stating that Avvo’s forms are “crap” on their own merits. That is, he is comparing Avvo’s form to a good form, rather than to the bespoke work product of a good lawyer.

Adams, however, is famously less than impressed with what many lawyers produce. In a previous post, he subjected a LegalZoom contract to the same kind of scrutiny and came to a similar conclusion: “commoditized mediocrity.” He then added this gem:

It’s clear why business customers might want to try LegalZoom. Lawyers cost more than LegalZoom. Choosing a lawyer can be a crapshoot. And there’s a fair chance that an NDA produced by a lawyer you retain wouldn’t be any better than LegalZoom’s.

Let that soak in for a second. Adams is absolutely saying that the forms from Avvo and LegalZoom are mediocre. But he is also saying that a fair number of lawyers are just as mediocre, if not worse. Where I made the banal observation that it was obviously stupid to start from scratch if you already have a good indemnification clause, Adams would likely counter that the indemnification clause you have probably isn’t all that good and that most lawyers are incapable of writing one that is. As he writes in the Avvo post, “the quality failure of the consumer market is just part of the quality failure of contract drafting as a whole.”

Consider an analogous post where Adams takes the same critic’s eye to a two-page, simplified cloud contract for which IBM was getting accolades. Adams labels the contract the work of “dilettantes” and then lays out a case that most lawyers should leave contracts to the professionals (i.e., being a lawyer does not make one a contract professional):

What conclusion do I suggest you draw from my markup? That contract language is specialized—it’s best left to specialists. Knowing your company’s transactions doesn’t make you a specialist. And many years of being steeped in traditional contract language doesn’t make you a specialist. You become a specialist only by making a concerted and disciplined attempt to familiarize yourself with the building blocks of contract language, the good and the not-so-good.

If you’re not a specialist, you’re a dilettante. Those responsible for IBM’s new cloud services contract are presumably knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and hard-working, but when it comes to contract language, the shortcomings in the new contract suggest that they’re dilettantes. That’s to be expected. In fact, the contracts ecosystem would work better if contract language were left in the hands of a limited number of “legal knowledge engineers” (to use Susskind’s clunky but apt phrase) working closely with those who have a broader understanding of the business and legal issues.

Adams made similar comments in a post labeling the Google-Motorola merger agreement “a mediocre piece of drafting. It’s bloated and hard to read, and that takes a toll at every stage—drafting, reviewing, negotiating, and monitoring compliance. And there might be lurking in the verbiage some bit of confusion that metastasizes into a dispute down the road.” He then answers the question that almost anyone would ask.

Mediocre? How can that be! After all, Google is represented by the prominent law firm Cleary Gottlieb—presumably they did the bulk of the drafting. Well, the Google–Motorola merger agreement is mediocre because all big-time M&A drafting—or at least all that I’ve seen—is mediocre.

That should come as no surprise, seeing as the language of mainstream drafting generally is dysfunctional. That’s due to a mix of factors. The root cause is that because any transaction will closely resemble previous transactions, drafting has become largely an exercise in regurgitation, with most contract language being given a pass. Also, law firms aren’t suited to the task of retooling and maintaining template contracts. (For more on these factors, see my article The New Associate and the Future of Contract Drafting; go here for a PDF copy.)

But in addition, most of the M&A luminaries I’ve approached have made it clear that they’re wedded to old habits and conventional wisdom. Perhaps what makes M&A drafting particularly resistant to change is that clients are less inclined to meddle when it comes to “bet the farm” work such as the Google–Motorola deal.

The way to fix M&A drafting would be to turn it into a commodity process. Google, if you want your M&A contracts to be free of shortcomings of the sort manifest in the Google–Motorola merger agreement, I suggest that you enlist some like-minded companies and form a consortium to create a rigorous set of document-assembly M&A templates. You could fund it with spare change retrieved from your couch. Judicious use of the carrot and the stick would get leading law firms to participate. The work could be done quickly and efficiently. The basic idea should be familiar to you—after all, this month Google Ventures invested in Rocket Lawyer, which aims to commoditize, in a much more rudimentary way, some basic consumer and small-business documents.

[In a subsequent post, Adams reviews an actual contract from Rocket Lawyer. The title of the post, “Rocket Lawyer? Contract Automation FAIL“] 

Adams is not opposed to forms. Adams is about the staunchest supporter of forms you can find. He just believes that most lawyers lack the training to author first-rate forms. He is not saying Avvo, LegalZoom, and Rocket Lawyer forms are mediocre because they are forms. He is saying they are mediocre because they are mediocre. He reaches similar conclusions about the bespoke work product of lawyers hired by IBM and Google.

As Compared to What

Avvo’s position touches upon the IKEAization of law. Much of IKEA’s furniture is disappointingly serviceable. It works for the intended purpose. But it is made of cheap, fragile particle board. It has a high propensity to break and is notoriously painful to put together.

Yet, many of us shop at IKEA anyway because it is substantially less expensive than traditional furniture. Should consumers be permitted to make the same tradeoff when it comes to legal services? Slightly worse but radically cheaper.

It’s an important question for every legal consumer, including in-house counsel who are not only under pressure to consider less expensive alternatives to traditional law firms but should always keep in mind the lessons of Do Less Law. Budgets are finite, and resources should be put to their highest and best use. Tradeoffs are unavoidable.

But the question of slightly worse at substantially lower cost is of particular significance for consumers who cannot otherwise afford legal services. The access-to-justice gap is not going to close because we talk about it endlessly. Beginning to close the access-to-justice gap means actually making the structural changes that would provide more access to justice.

But the whole IKEAization discussion rests on an implicit comparison. We know, for example, that the Avvo and LegalZoom forms are cheaper. We can do that math. But do we really know whether they are worse than what the consumer would have gotten from the lawyer they would have hired (if they could have hired one). The instinctive answers seems to be that, yes, we know the expensive human lawyer will outperform the inexpensive (or free) form. Adams, however, calls into question our knee-jerk reaction. And even if the forms are worse, the issue of how much worse matters quite a bit in a world of tradeoffs. Dangerous and suboptimal are different conclusions with different implications.

I would interested to hear how crowds of lawyers react to Adams if/when he tells them that most of them are bad at contract drafting. According to Bryan Garner, they “bristle” when tells them that, “on the whole, our profession can’t punctuate.”  Garner, the authority on legal writing, does more than remark on poor comma usage [so guilty!], he tells rooms full of lawyers that they are bad at writing in general:

For many years in lectures, I’ve likened practicing lawyers, when it comes to writing, to 23-handicap golfers who believe that they’re equal to the touring professionals. For those not golfers, this would mean that pretty poor golfers—those who habitually shoot in the mid-90s but benefit from the big handicap—somehow fool themselves into believing that they really are shooting in the mid-60s, and that they’re about as good as it gets. I’ve been trying, in other words, to say that lawyers on the whole don’t write well and have no clue that they don’t write well.

In the quoted article, Garner discusses Dunning-Kruger, or illusory superiority. Ignorance begets confidence because of meta-ignorance–ignorance of our own ignorance. Because we don’t know what we don’t know, we labor under delusions of adequacy. We then erect those delusions of adequacy (or grandeur) as the standard against we measure all suggestions of departure from the reigning status quo. Legal forms are just part of a much broader discussion of what kind of work demands a human admitted to the bar in a particular state. Think of UPL regulations, humans as the “gold standard” in document review, the kind of work amenable to outsourcing, etc.

I write quite a bit about using process and technology to complement legal expertise. I spill most of my digital ink defending the complements–process and technology–and trying to explain how they augment or leverage the expertise. Maybe I need to spend a little more energy questioning the implicit assumption that the expertise is all that expert.

Original URL:

Original article

Followup on features

In the last few days I’ve posted two feature requests:

  1. A Node.js app to browse a server’s file system,
  2. way to tell the forever utility to save a snapshot of the current mix.

Happy to report that in a Facebook thread I got a pointer to Cloud Commander from Hanan Cohen. It seems to be exactly what I asked for.

I’ll let you know if we get the forever enhancement.

Original URL:

Original article turns on HTTPS encryption for all websites

Lock is adding HTTPS support for all its blogs. If you have a custom domain or have a blog under the domain name (like, you’re good to go.
While many social services like Facebook and Twitter have supported HTTPS for a while now, was still lagging behind for custom domain names.
Since 2014, Read More

Original URL:

Original article turns on HTTPS encryption for all websites is adding HTTPS support for all of its blogs. If you have a custom domain or a blog under the domain name (like, you’re good to go.

While many social services like Facebook and Twitter have supported HTTPS for a while now, was still lagging behind for custom domain names.

Since 2014, subdomains have supported HTTPS, but not the others. But this isn’t as easy as flipping a switch for custom domain names as you need certificates for all domain names.

Thanks to the Let’s Encrypt project, it has become much cheaper and easier to implement HTTPS across the web. is taking advantage of this initiative for its websites. Each website now has an SSL certificate and will display a green lock in your address back.

As a nice side effect, Google tends to favor websites that support HTTPS over HTTP-only website. So your website should rank higher in Google search results.

I’m sure you all have a burning question. What do I need to do to activate HTTPS? In an Oprah-like moment, is activating HTTPS on all websites without having to do anything. You get an SSL certificate! Everyone gets an SSL certificate!

Featured Image: Montillon/Flickr UNDER A CC BY 2.0 LICENSE

Original URL:

Original article

Verizon To Submit Bid For Yahoo

An anonymous reader writes: Sources close to the company have confirmed that Verizon will submit a first-round bid to purchase Yahoo’s web business early next week, and that they may offer to take on Yahoo Japan as well. Time Inc. and Google are said to still be considering whether or not to make an offer, while AT&T, Comcast, and Microsoft have decided against entering a bid. Verizon’s willingness to take on Yahoo Japan in the bid may give it a strategic advantage over other bidders. The combined value of Yahoo web and Yahoo Japan Corp. could put the value of the bid out of range for all but the largest investors, potentially putting interested private equity firms such as Bain or TPG out of the running.

Share on Google+

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Original URL:

Original article

U.S. Post Office Makes Stamps Cheaper for the First Time in 100 Years

Snail mail is about to get cheaper.

The U.S. Postal Service announced Thursday that it will drop the price of postage stamps starting this weekend—the first time it has lowered the postage rate in 97 years. The only other time in history that the cost of a stamp has gone down was in 1919, when Congress reset postage prices to their pre-World War I levels, according to a USPS spokesperson.

The price reduction marks the end of a special program that since 2014 had allowed the USPS to temporarily increase postage prices to make up for revenue it lost when mail volume declined sharply during the Great Recession of 2008 and ’09. But regulators capped the amount the USPS could recoup with the surcharge at $4.6 billion—a total that the Postal Service is set to hit by this Sunday, April 10.

Once the USPS reaches that ceiling, it is required to roll back the 4.3% surcharge it had tacked on to first-class mail and commercial postage rates. That means that the cost of a stamp to mail a standard letter will decrease from 49 cents to 47 cents this Sunday. The price of sending a postcard will also drop by a penny, to 34 cents, while international mail will go down by a nickel, to $1.15 per letter instead of the current $1.20.

While the price cut will be a boon for many consumers, it’s bad news for collectors and investors in so-called “Forever stamps,” the generic stamps valued at whatever the current postage rate is no matter when they were purchased. Since Forever stamps were created in 2007, Americans have scooped them up as a way to hedge against future price hikes that seemed eternally inevitable. But that strategy has now backfired: As former Fortune columnist Allan Sloan put it in a 2014 column, “If stamp prices somehow were cut, millions of Forever holders, including me, would feel cheated.”

The USPS, which has posted steep losses in recent years as old-fashioned mail has given way to electronic communication and pension obligations have saddled it with massive expenses, opposed the postage reduction. Arguing that the expiration of the surcharge will reduce its revenue by $2 billion per year, the Postal Service is pleading with regulators and Congress to extend the higher rates—though so far it has been unsuccessful.

Original URL:

Original article Enables HTTPS Encryption For All Websites

On Friday, WordPress announced that it is bringing free HTTPS to all — “million-plus” — custom domains, essentially ramping up security on every blog and website. The publishing platform says it partnered with Let’s Encrypt project to implement HTTPS across such a voluminous number of sites. From the blog: For you, the users, that means you’ll see secure encryption automatically deployed on every new site within minutes. We are closing the door to un-encrypted web traffic (HTTP) at every opportunity.

Share on Google+

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Original URL:

Original article

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: