Platforms actually do get more leeway than is usually thought with DMCA takedown requests. If they believe it to be fraudulent, they have every right to disregard it. That’s a fact they conveniently try to downplay because they want people to think they have no responsibility for their actions.

This back and forth from the comments on the article is interesting:

What the article ommits: The youtuber in question has a long history of threatening smaller channels with various actions against them, from brigading to lawyers to copyright strikes, if they do something he doesn’t like and don’t bow to his will. So I’m not surprised to see someone was fed up with him eventually.

Two wrongs don’t make a right as my nan used to say. This YouTuber being a bit of a grunt does not negate the fact YouTube itself is happy taking a hands off approach to a fundamental part of their business model because the ones it affects are not the ones that give them most of the money.

Of course it’s a problem, I just feel 0 sympathy in this case and I find it ironic that it’s him especially that got hit with the same treatment he threatens others with.

Actually, not necessarily. Plagiarism is not interchangeable with copyright infringement. Plagiarism is specifically academic misconduct.

Those videos that upload an entire movie to YouTube and put “no copyright infringement intended” in the description are not committing plagiarism, because they are being honest about how the content they are using is not their own. But they are committing copyright infringement.

Likewise, you can do plagiarism while not doing copyright infringement, if you take something that is public domain and use it in your research paper without explaining where you got it. It’s public domain, so there’s nothing legally wrong there. But it’s academically dishonest.

I think the combination of calling him Charlie, making him a unicorn-like creature, and going to a place called Candy (Kingdom instead of Mountain) makes it a little more than mere friendly homage for my liking. Probably not enough to give rise to a legal claim of copyright or trademark infringement, but enough to be ethically very shaky.

It’s like if that Borderlands sniper was also an anthropomorphised polar bear from the 100 Acre Tundra.

Very interesting. Now I even more want to see what it was.

Anyone got a non-Xitter mirror of the ad?

Oh I missed that. That’s clever.

No, ambidexterity is comfort with both hands. Ambisinestrousness is discomfort with both hands.

Yup, this is exactly it. There are very few software systems whose failure does not impact people. Sure, it’s rare for it to kill them, but they cause people to lose large amounts of money, valuable time, or sensitive information. That money loss is always, ultimately, paid by end consumers. Even in B2B software, there are human customers of the company that bought/uses the software.

I actually would go further and say that collectively, we are terrible at what we do. Not every individual, but the combination of individuals, teams, management, and business requirements mean that collectively we produce terrible results. If bridges failed at anywhere near the rate that software does, processes would be changed to fix the problem. But bugs, glitches, vulnerabilities etc. are rife in the software industry. And it just gets accepted as normal.

It is possible to do better. We know this, from things like the stuff that sent us to the moon. But we’ve collectively decided not to do better.

Age of Mythology: Retold. By far. It only came out in September and already it’s my 7th most-played Steam game of all time.

It was never in contention for the goty, by frankly I’m disappointed that it didn’t win its own category at least, because it is just so good. It delivers so perfectly on what it promised. It’s a remake that feels like how your nostalgia remembers the OG game, adding in excellent modern polish and exciting gameplay while keeping the core of what made the 2002 game so great.

Because it compares people with down syndrome to chimpanzees, and because it took a good faith serious discussion and made a mockery of it.

Oh, so you were just being a dick for the sake of being a dick? That’s worse bro.

Are you really this fucking thick? There’s more to genetic compatibility than chromosome count. Otherwise we’d be seeing human–Reeves’s muntjac hybrids. Or chimp-gorilla.

Yeah, I don’t think that’s how chromosomes work

Umm, I don’t think that’s how it works.

Yeah fertile offspring is almost entirely off the table here from what I can see.

We’re talking way earlier than cavemen. The last interbreeding between our ancestors and chimps’ ancestors happened (using the most recent estimate I could find) a million years before the least recent evidence of the use of any stone tools. This is not a human that would be recognisable at all as a human.

Homo sapiens are the last remaining species of hominina. Our closest remaining relatives, the Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos) diverged at least 6.5 million years ago. Though there is some evidence early hominina may have interbred with pan after the divergence as recently as 4 mya.

This is more recent than dogs and foxes by a long way, and about the same as donkeys and horses. That, plus chromosomal analysis and some other research suggests it could be possible for a human and chimp or bonobo to interbreed, though likely not create fertile offspring. However, there has never been a confirmed case of this occurring, despite multiple claims.

Edit: useful articles:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee–human_last_common_ancestor

The expression is actually “hear, hear!” A shortening of “hear him, hear him”, an instruction saying “listen to what this guy’s saying. It’s good shit.”