I mean I was just a teenager when Oppy was launched. I followed it more or less religiously through out my life. It was easily like seeing a pet go. Loyalest little robot that could… and did.
Plagiarism, by definition, is taking the work of someone else without attribution. If you’ve provided attribution, it cannot ever be plagiarism.
Note that this is not the same as copyright infringement. If I upload the complete 3rd season of Knight Rider to YouTube, that’s copyright infringement, no matter what. But if I were to do it and say “created by Glen Larson for NBC” in the description of every video, it would not also be plagiarism.
The above site cannot be plagiarism because every single one points back to a specific XKCD comic or comics that it used as its source. It could be copyright infringement, although I suspect it would probably qualify for a fair use defence due to being parody.
I guess my definitions were a bit loose, but isn’t it extremely in poor taste to emulate the exact formatting of the website? An unsuspecting user might genuinely believe they were at the original XKCD site.
The formatting of the website looks completely different to me. The buttons don’t look similar, they’re not in the same place. It has its clear logo which basically tells you it’s not Randall Monroe’s site: “Making XKCD Slightly Worse”.
The only thing that’s similar is the art style of the comic itself. Which like…yeah? That’s the point.
Weird - I’m seeing that now too. But I wasn’t at the time that I copy and pasted the links, and you can see from the other replies around 8 hours ago that other people were also seeing a site hosting edited versions of xkcd comics. I guess it has suddenly changed, after years of being up, in the few hours after I posted it? I have no idea what happened there.
If you consider the greater evolutionary history, up until very recently humans have been kind of like the monster in It Follows. They’re not very fast runners, but they are relentless. No other animal can run for such a long time. They’ll keep going and going for hours on end, and they will eventually catch up with their victim. For an injured prey with explosive strength but relatively low endurance it must be absolutely terrifying.
Dogs joined the dark side, so they probably feel all cool and mighty next to their running master. In their head they go “yeah bitches you can run, but you can never hide from my human”.
People in real life are both. For every wholesome opinion, there exists at least 1 oposing opinion, and probably another one that says you should feel like shit for even thinking of that opinion.
We can talk about cooperation and compromise as soon as the right starts doing it. For the last 40 years, the left is compromised and the right has dug in. This is dragged the country way farther right than we deserve.
I think the main problem is that a single value score means different things to different people. Most people think it means “entertaining”, film nerds think “original”, cineasts think, well, I don’t know actually, but I’d imagine a sum of technical aspects.
One solution would be to split up the rating into aspects, another to filter ratings according to similarity in preferences. None of these are perfect though and the latter may even be another social media trap with all kinds of inherent problematics.
My workaround is to have a quick glance at the different review boards I know for their audience and weigh the scores to the type of movie if it’s worth a two hour investment of time or not.
Personally I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there is no reason for me to rate movies for how faux objectively “good” they are. I don’t rate movies for anybody else. I rate them to keep track of what I’ve seen from people in the production. I try to give it some context, but ultimately it’s an entirely subjective rating for myself.
Counterpoint: Movie “Critics” are supposed to be the ones who judge movie on how well made it is rather than their personal taste. Roger Ebert disliked a lot of films but didn’t deduct the scores because of it.
Funko critics on RT are not qualified to be critics.
I don’t think it’s contradictory to my post. RT is one of the boards I check for the angle of supposedly professional movie critics, though I’ll be the first to admit the standards are pretty low.
I always gave Ebert credit for his review philosophy. Like you said, he would review a slasher movie and he said he didn’t care for them but he would review it from the angle of slasher movies and if it was a good slasher movie. He seemed to have a strange hangup on nudity even though he wrote the script for “Valley of the Dolls.” For instance, he didn’t like “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” because Jennifer Jason Leigh had a nude scene.
I love you, unlike OP, who clearly hates you, so here’s the alt-text.
On January 26th, 2274 Mars days into the mission, NASA declared Spirit a ‘stationary research station’, expected to stay operational for several more months until the dust buildup on its solar panels forces a final shutdown.
comicstrips
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.