• 0 Posts
  • 81 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 21st, 2023

help-circle


  • there is plenty open source software, that you can buy. There are many modes:

    • you buy the support (redhead)
    • you buy the long-term-support (ubuntu)
    • you pay for backports to old releases (keycloak iirc)
    • there is a open source version, and you can pay for enterprise features and hosting (gitlab)
    • there is an open source version, and you pay for customization (star office, iirc)

    and my personal favorit:

    • you pay a random developer to submit pullrequests for bugs that are relevant to you






  • Fraud is still fraud, even if they call it something else.

    The consumer was led to believe, they could access the media for a long time. The time was abruptly cut short. The consumer did not get what they were led to believe. It’s fraud.

    It’s like every other (consumer-)fraud before: they can write in the fine print whatever they want.


    I am not saying that this argument will definitely hold up in court. I just want to point out, that it’s not so clear-cut as you are presenting it.











  • bort@feddit.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNo pets
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    It is blatant plagiarism

    yes, and a solution could have been to cite sources.

    This was no innocent mistake of forgetting to list a source

    I don’t think, that not-citing-sources is an innocent mistake.

    Watch the hbomberguy video segment about it, it paints a very clear picture

    I did. I does paint a very colorful picture. Full of opinion and sarcasm and rhethoric.

    Here is a rule-of-thumb to decide if an argument was convincing because it had good content, or because it was well written: If the content was good, it will be easy for you explain to a 3rd party. If only the presentation was good, then you will have a hard time convincing others.


  • bort@feddit.detoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldNo pets
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    guy covers historical event doesn’t rewrite history, instead takes what someone else has written about event doesn’t use own fotos, uses someone elses foto instead makes mistakes

    I am not saying this is a big nothing burger, but his only real mistakes was not to list his sources.