Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

But he (Ratimov) has links to all the articles he used the information from. Like assemble an article from 5 sources at the end your work was to put the different articles in one text body based on the subject you are talking about, and most of the texts belong to the authors from the links in the sources.

Correction: Ratimov did not assemble an article “from 5 sources”. He copied and pasted the whole post from a single article (with some parts omitted). It is far from the first time that he has done such things.

The list of “sources” at the end is misleading in many ways. Including this. There was only one “source”. You have been misled.

Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

Giving sources shows that the article is not completely yours

Say what!? Academic-style footnote sources are provided in papers that are “completely” the authors’. That is what avoiding plagiarism means: The work must be yours. Of course, almost all serious work refers to others work, or builds on prior work.

Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

and the reader knows it by seeing those links under the article.

Not even remotely credible.

Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

What is the big deal here? Maybe he should put remarks¹ on every phrase where he used it from like people do it in their thesis?

He copied and pasted the whole post from the article. Why are you talking about thesis-style footnotes? You are making no sense whatsoever.

<snip>

Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

BTW if I have to translate something I would probably translate it directly like word by word so probably it would sound like Google translate, but with a bit more grammatic errors.

Then you know nothing about translations. (And I infer that you must know only one language.)

It is impossible to translate any nontrivial text word-for-word from such a language as Russian, with its highly complex and subtle grammar (or, say, German, with its moderately complex grammar, its difficult compounds, and its SOV word order—or...), into English. The result would be comical gibberish.

Google Translate itself does not translate literally, word-for-word, as you imply. If it did, then it would be totally useless. It uses the latest advancements in natural language processing and AI. It still makes many basic mistakes; and it chokes horribly on idioms that a competent human translator would translate in concept, possibly using some awkward circumlocutions if no analogous concept exists in the target language.

So certain is it that different translators will produce different results that in classical antiquity, the Jews used this as a “proof” that the Septuagint was translated under divine authority. They claimed that 72 different rabbis each sat alone in a room, translated the Bible to Greek, and produced word-for-word identical results—therefore, God must have guided the translation! If there were any proof that 72 different translators independently produced word-for-word identical results, or even that 2 translators produced identical results, then this would actually be a scientifically credible argument. (Of course, there is no such proof.)

Do you wish to suggest that Ratimov and Google Translate are both guided by God in their translations? Roll Eyes

Quote from: TheBeardedBaby on Today at 12:53:56 AM

it's difficult have a real proof that he used Automated translation.

Really? I spent little effort on identifying the orange-highlighted parts below; I could have pointed out more.

Anyway, your whole argument is patent nonsense to anyone who understands the art of translation, or even anyone who speaks more than one language.

Quote from: nullius on December 08, 2020, 06:00:31 AM

Colour codes:

Text copied by Ratimov verbatim, or almost verbatim.
Text closely paraphrased by Ratimov. Some of this “paraphrasing” may be a straight copy and paste; Google Translate does not give the exact same results every time.
Extraordinarily weird machine translation errors that Ratimov did not even bother to fix. Emphasizes the essential copy-paste nature of this post.
In the original, this text was copied or closely paraphrased/text-spun by Ratimov.

[...]

Quote from: Ratimov on December 03, 2020, 01:33:06 PM

In this article I would like to touch upon such a theme as online privacy. [...]

[...] an electronic mailing list called "Cypherpunk" was created. In a short time, she gained hundreds of subscribers who tested ciphers, exchanged ideas and discussed new developments.

[...] the creator of Zcash Zuko Wilcox.

In February 1996, the founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), John Perry Barlow, published an iconic document called A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace, which is still considered a classic of Internet libertarianism. The document consisted of harsh and unprincipled statements addressed to world governments and became a response to the Telecommunications Decency Act signed before this US President Bill Clinton, with the help of which the authorities tried to censor the Internet.

[...] Despite the fact that the act signed by Bill Clinton later in the same 1996 by a federal court decision was declared unconstitutional,