However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.
They identified as a lawyer. Explaining what you’re asking could be construed as offering advice on the Internet, which is potentially perilous for their ongoing livelihood. That’s not unique to the law, either, and is common in licensed professions where the license permits you to wield your knowledge at great risk to another (i.e., a physician).
I, for one, am glad otterley pointed it out. It’s an effective caution and prompted me to consider it critically. Given the OP cited case law and therefore sounds somewhat informed, I can understand the urgency of the caution, and I think otterley is (skillfully) balancing that caution against their ongoing responsibilities due to what I’m telling you.
More like: I'm an astronaut with a degree in nuclear physics and a minor in underwater basket weaving and while I cannot give you personalized advice I can suggest reviewing this general information produced by professionals that are interested in this cause: insert link here.
Is isn’t it hard to weave underwater? What kind of materials do you actually use for that?
But seriously, most people that aren’t a lawyer are very likely to IANAL on the internet, the ones claiming to be one (especially on HN) are more likely to actually be.
I’d need some research to back that up, but since I am lazy I’m going to go with my gut on this.
However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.