I know paralegals already love large language models.
The whole point of the demand letter isn't the three paragraphs, it's what goes above the addressee part - the legal office letterhead. That's what you're really paying for.
You’re not wrong—letterhead does add a certain “oh sh*t” factor. But the real power move? Clarity + Confidence. Most disputes don’t actually go to court, they get resolved because one side sounds like they know what they’re doing.
Would an official legal firm letterhead help? Sure. But a well-structured, legally sound demand letter—even without the fancy stationery—is often enough to make someone take it seriously. Especially when they realize the next step is actual legal action.
That said, I’m open to ideas—maybe a future version offers something to bridge that perception gap.
That’s why the tool doesn’t generate fake legal letterheads or make it look like an attorney is behind it.
But here’s the thing—you don’t need the illusion of a law firm to make a demand letter effective. The real power is in the clear, structured, state-specific language that signals to the recipient: I know my rights, I know what you owe me, and I’m serious about collecting. Most people cave because they realize the next step isn’t just another email—it’s small claims or legal escalation.
Would a letterhead help? Maybe. But the goal here is leverage without crossing legal lines.
I hope it pushes Nvidia to hobble less of the consumer grade offerings for AI/inference.
Part of this recent selloff is going to be the bubble popping effect, but it's clear that inference will be the main demand driver, and that's something where ddr5 is competitive.
The amount of "whataboutism" and bothsidism when it comes to the comment section of any Western outlet (here included) is pretty wild. I would say this 2 month old account you're replying to is a great example of the typical output of such accounts.
It sort of is, though. For this Ukrainian war, it's plain to see how they've turned the hose of misinformation on full blast. There's no reason for a company that wants to be in good standing to support that. Youtube has already cut ties with them.
And political posts and comments on HN are everywhere, with little ability to report misinformation and blatant influence campaigns, so maybe you should start looking for that next place.
I support free speech. I will fight misinformation with facts and argumentation. Not with censorship.
If a media of any kind starts to filter what I can see, I will loose trust in that media. Being blind to the opposing side, and being stuck in a bubble where everyone agrees with me is the perfect place for misinformation to spread.
> And political posts and comments on HN are everywhere
There is a difference between "i think that ... because ..." (expressing yourself) and "we should censor/attack/cancel ... because they are the bad guys" (propaganda).
It's good to support free speech, but this is not a case where free speech is being limited.
What we have here is bots utilizing platforms with a specific aim. In this case, it's a specific comment plugin (Disqus) on specific government-related site (RT.com) that's being used to facilitate a firehose of propaganda.
As Garry Kasparov says: "The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth."
Hi, currently there is nothing of this sort. The user agents are random. I have a couple of servers doing the scraping in real-time. The IPs are not static.
Let me see if I can build a opt-out list. But wouldn't it beat the entire purpose of this app?
You should just declare your bot as a user-agent. Most publishers won't even bother to do it, but leaving a publisher an option is the correct etiquette for any bot. Random user agents is cloaked scraping.
