[Resolved] Blatant Content Theft/Plagiarism by YouTuber

[AtlasP]

Update: Jimmy has acknowledged, issued an apology for, and proposed a resolution to the confirmed plagiarism. Consequently I have formally accepted his apology and the resolution outlined, and consider the matter resolved. Original sequence of posts/events remain below, including my final closing thoughts, here: https://forum.electricunicycle.org/topic/21009-resolved-blatant-content-theftplagiarism-by-youtuber/?do=findComment&comment=348289

__

Last month, OneWheel & EUC YouTuber Jimmy Chang announced the launch of a new EUC website which prominently features data blatantly stolen/plagiarized from a popular community EUC Comparison Table project without permission or credit--but of course with his referral links plastered over it.

• The original EUC Comparison Table project which has been plagiarized is maintained by myself in collaboration with community contributors and is the result of likely over a hundred hours of work over the past several years scouring manufacturer & reseller websites for weekly changes/updates, and at times talking directly with manufacturers & resellers about their spec listings, requesting clarification/disambiguation, and even helping them correct ambiguities & errors in their own listings. This obsession with detail/accuracy and overall polish has caused the project to rise in popularity to become frequently referenced in the community and for example is the top pinned thread in the largest "EUC Forum"'s "Which Electric Unicycle to get?" sub-forum.

1. https://1drv.ms/x/s!Ag0ky7mWfH9cm9dMfvYothdqZtIsdw
2. https://forum.electricunicycle.org/topic/17309-up-to-date-euc-comparison-table
3. https://forum.electricunicycle.org/forum/65-which-electric-unicycle-to-get/

• Several months ago, Jimmy actually private-messaged me when he saw through a local riding group that I lived in the same city, specifically calling out in his opening message how he "love[d] [my] chart" and randomly inviting me to join him test-riding a couple of new pre-release wheels. My girlfriend and I jumped at the chance and consequently the two of us are featured riding and speaking throughout one of his videos published in ~July/August. (In hindsight I guess it was peculiar how much he wanted to talk/ask questions specifically about my table--at the time I figured it was just pretty much all he knew about me.)

• Apparently sometime last month, Jimmy published a video announcing the launch of his new EUC website with its top feature being "his" "EUC Comparison Tool" (linked below) with a data set unequivocally plagiarized/derived from our community project, while disingenuously claiming "Data accumulated from Ewheels.com and from manufacturer websites". (This is a bold-face lie in all senses except indirectly, as the majority of his data was clearly plagiarized/derived directly from our table, and of course our table contains some data accumulated from those places--although not all of it.)

• There are many details/quirks in both contents and formatting which give away that the data was plagiarized. (Due to many quirks and outright contradictions across manufacturer and reseller sources, maintaining a table such as ours inevitably involves quite a lot of curation to sanitize/homogenize the data, resulting in a ton of places where one can recognize unique details/nuances of our curation & formatting choices vs if someone tried compiling the data themselves from these sources.) Here are just three simple examples:

  1. Sometimes when a hardware revision is large enough, some manufacturers will append "V2"/etc. to the name as in the "MCM5 V2" or "Monster V3" (so the "Vx" becomes part of the product name, included without parenthesis--important in a second). Last year the KS-18XL was revised without any such change to its name either by the manufacturer or resellers, but which we believed was noteworthy enough to denote as the "18XL (V2)" in our table (enclosing the "V2" in parenthesis since it is not part of the formal product name). Jimmy's table not only refers to the 18XL as V2 (even though "V2" appears nowhere on his claimed sources of "Ewheels.com [or] manufacturer website"), but even keeps this otherwise-inexplicable inconsistency with the parenthesis, listing the "MCM5 V2", "Monster V3", and "18XL (V2)".

  2. Jimmy's table includes a year "Released" field even though this information appears nowhere on his claimed sources of "Ewheels.com [or] manufacturer websites" for the vast majority of wheels. In fact this information is damn-near impossible to find anywhere online for almost all wheels, and if one does occasionally find a date (like in a press release) it is almost always for the initial launch of a new wheel. Conversely in our table we uniquely update the release date to that of the latest significant revision (I know of no other source for EUC info online that does this). Unsurprisingly, Jimmy's "Released" field matches our data set identically with no plausible alternate source.

  3. Because not every manufacturer releases numbers for some context-dependent specs such max speed or range, this leaves resellers like Ewheels.com to produce their own estimates for these values, and it looks like Jimmy used specifically our reported Ewheels values for things like max speed and range (just stripping away some of the formatting and reducing ranges to their lowest value). The giveaway here is that, while Ewheels is the largest and most-reputable western reseller, unfortunately their website has some issues with data consistency (they're still the most popular/likely best place to buy wheels, this is just a not-uncommon issues for quickly-growing/overworked niche businesses). As just one example, check out this pic that was floating around the forums this past year: https://bit.ly/35ISDpO . (There are three separate sets of contradictions highlighted in that single image.) Other examples: A recent audit of Ewheels' pages found the max speed of the mten3 listed as both 23 and 25 mph on the same page, the Tesla as having both a 1900W and 2000W motor on the same page, the V10 as having a 680Wh battery (flat out incorrect), the S18 as having its prototype weight of 48lbs while the final version's weight is closer to 55lbs, etc (I could keep going). Unsurprisingly, Jimmy's table's numbers match ours *identically*, when there's simply no reasonable way someone generating their own table from these sources would end up with an identical set of numbers--particularly for those specs without manufacturer-provided numbers & with Ewheels as a primary source.

  4. (Oh and his "MSRP" field is a lie by virtue of being mislabeled--it's just the Ewheels prices, probably also taken from our table, but either way in no way an actual "Manufacturer-Suggested Retail Price"--rather they're just the prices of one particular vendor, completely independent of pricing or price suggestions by the actual manufacturers.)

  5. I can list a bunch more examples, but I want to keep some more in reserve in case he tries to just delete/change the few more egregious examples I've highlighted here to minimize the resemblance without properly rectifying the broader situation.

Bottom line/takeaways:

• First and foremost, I believe Jimmy should delete the entire offending data set (not just the few more egregious entries/example bits I've highlighted here). I'm not calling for him to take down the entire site/interface which he built around it, but he should have to either compile the data for it himself or otherwise source it legitimately instead of just plagiarizing someone else's work and passing it off as his own. (Alternatively I'm undecided if I would be satisfied with just a credit link, which is of course unlikely now anyway--at the very least I would want to have some input on the wording of any credit+link considering the broader context.)
• Second, I believe he should apologize in a way that explicitly acknowledges that it was plagiarism and was wrong--and not trying to sidestep/soften this this by trying to claim they "didn't know/realize [whatever trivial aspect of the situation they focus on as a strawman to distract from the crux of the issue]". When someone does something like this, they know /exactly/ what they are doing/trying to get away with.
• This whole sequence of events has been a bit surreal, albeit with a tactile sense of being punched in the gut when I first heard about and realized what had been done. Jimmy maintains this image of a generally mild-mannered, middle-aged asian father of three--not exactly the kind of young punk with colored hair making the poggers face in every thumbnail you expect to do this kind of thing. (I do wonder what he tells his kids about plagiarizing from the internet for their schoolwork, or how he'd feel if his kids found out about their father plagiarizing things when it suited him.)

Offending Link for Verification:

It is an unfortunate consequence of how youtube/social media algorithms work that the traffic generated from such incidents often reward the offending individual with growth/revenue. Here I provide a link to the plagiarized content for those who wish to verify anything I've said here, which I certainly encourage and would be happy to answer any follow-up questions: https://eucguide.com/euc-comparison-tool/ . Conversely if you're just going to click the link and poke around for 30 seconds without really knowing what you're looking at or verifying anything, you might consider whether or not you want to give him the click.

Edited December 14, 2020 by AtlasP

[AtlasP]

Pre-emptive answers to questions/sentiments that are likely to appear in the comments:

"something something copyright something something…"

This post has been entirely centered around an *ethical* argument regarding plagiarism, not any legal argument regarding copyright. (Observe that the word 'copyright' does not appear anywhere in the original post.) Ultimately copyright is sufficiently complex and so widely misunderstood that its entrance in the discussion would only sidetrack from the fundamental ethical issue. Plagiarism is generally wrong irrelevant of whether it happens to narrowly violate copyright law or not in any particular jurisdiction. (This is not conceding whether or not such would also qualify as copyright infringement, but I am completely unwilling to participate in discussion over that complicated subject on a public forum.)

"But he made sufficient additions/changes to qualify as fair use…"

My answer here is the same as the previous. The concept of fair use is a component of copyright law, not the ethics surrounding plagiarism. If one plagiarizes content even with some changes/additions which may qualify under fair use with regards to copyright (not conceding that's the case here, but hypothetically if), that still does not absolve them of the ethics violation of plagiarizing content with improper attribution/while misrepresenting its source.

"How dare you claim ownership of spec information which is really owned by the manufacturers/resellers…"

I have made no such claim. Very simply, myself and some other community members worked to make something, compiling/curating a complex set of information with proper attribution/citing sources, and he plagiarized that content without proper attribution/misrepresenting its source.

Edited December 8, 2020 by AtlasP

[houseofjob]

@Jimmy Chang 

 

[shellac]

Did you try to contact him first about your legitimate concerns? He may have thought that it’s not a big deal, which legal or not is not a cool move.  That would be my first move before calling him out on here. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by shellac

[RagingGrandpa]

I suspect this is a money beef...

@AtlasP I appreciate your effort to aggregate EUC technical info into a single table. It helped me when I entered the hobby. I hope the community continues to maintain things like this, for the benefit of future new riders.

@Jimmy Chang's website is a different format from a single table. Maybe some people find it more useful? (I didn't.)

You raised the point that his site used information from your table. Got it.

"Why are you mad about that?" and surrounding discussion will likely dominate this thread.

I presume the potential loss of referral benefits is your motivating concern.
If it weren't for the money at stake, would this be noteworthy? (Was there something else I missed?)

Edited December 8, 2020 by RagingGrandpa

[Zopper]

10 minutes ago, RagingGrandpa said:

I presume the potential loss of referral benefits is your motivating concern.
If it weren't for the money at stake, would this be noteworthy? (Was there something else I missed?)

Well... First of all, even if it is about money, what's wrong about it? People have to live from something. I've had my own little project that lived from ads only and those were not even remotely enough to cover the costs I had to pay for the server, etc. And I eventually scrapped it, when I decided it's not worth of pouring the money in. 

But it doesn't have to be for a financial gain. When providing something "for free," frequently the only thing you get out of it is a good feeling and recognition/appreciation from others. You get none when someone comes and takes your work without referring to you. And I see all too often people ignoring the work of other people, starting with newspapers and their "source: internet." The only thing we can do about it is to speak out and tell the people that it is NOT ok to copy without permission. Whether there are any money in any particular case is irrelevant.

You could ask why open source projects also go after licence perpetrators, when their work is available for free. It's the same reason.

[AtlasP]

[This response was expanded in a later comment.]
 

Edited December 10, 2020 by AtlasP

[AtlasP]

@RagingGrandpa - The claim that this would be about (pitiful) referral money doesn't make sense with the fact that my primary request was just for him to take down the plagiarized data and replace it legitimately--which in all likelihood he could probably do in a few days/less than a week. I didn't argue for him to credit/link my project (which would be much more beneficial to me with the size of his audience). I didn't argue for him to take down the entire site (I explicitly said I didn't expect that). I didn't argue for any compensation. Ultimately he's a youtube persona with 20k subscribers and I'm just a data-obsessed dude with an obscure excel spreadsheet--if this was primarily over financial gain there are a 1000 other things I could've done over what I have done here, which is just calling out scummy behavior and asking it be rectified and apologized over.

The other purpose to such a call-out is to serve as a warning to other content creators here. There are a lot of wonderful people on this forum/in this community that volunteer a lot of their time and expertise providing resources and help to other riders. If you are one of those people and are contacted by a youtuber over something you made/shared with the community, this should serve as a warning to be careful and very explicit in those interactions.

Edited December 8, 2020 by AtlasP

[Silver]

I know you said to exclude copyright from this discussion, but there is a reason that you cannot own a copyright on facts. Map makers can't accuse someone of plagiarism just because a map contains all of the same cities on it. They own the way the map is colored or styled. You say you want him to replace the data with legitimately gathered data but if all of the information from your comparison table is factual would he not just come to the same numbers you did?

I am by no means unsympathetic to your position but I don't think I should need to give you credit if I tell someone the MTen3 has a top speed of 23mph instead of 25mph

[Michael Tucker]

Hey @AtlasP, no disrespect intended, I'm just thinking of some ideas here. If you are providing access to your aggregated information free of charge, are you collecting any ad revenue. If not, perhaps @Jimmy Changcan offer you some of his website ad revenue. Some money is better than no money. Or perhaps if you have another goal, like subscribers or email lists, perhaps he can offer his patrons's contact info in exchange. Does he state that he created or maintains the list?

Again no disrespect, I'm just an average EUC rider giving my own perspective of the described situation. Information and data presentation, to me, is like Wikipedia or the news, where these are single convenient places where I can go and believe what I read. And just like Wikipedia or CNN, I can't see myself paying for that presentation of facts. Facebook and Google came upon this legal/ethical predicament against mainstream media when their own news aggregator just collected the news stories of The New York Times or the SF Chronicle and showed it to people bypassing the originators websites. FWIW, ultimately the lawsuits showed that news, data and information is not copyrightable, but if commentary about that news and information was introduced, it could be considered art/entertainment and therefore protected. In a strange twist, if Jimmy adds his own opinion to the information from your list, his content may become protected and not yours.

Is Jimmy's use of your master table harming you? Taking traffic or ad revenue from your website or YouTube channel? Maybe your table is more valuable than you realize and you could monetize it now.

[null]

9 minutes ago, Silver said:

Map makers can't accuse someone of plagiarism just because a map contains all of the same cities on it

fun fact: Map makers actually include small errors they can point to if a competitor have copied their map rather than making their own.

Edited December 8, 2020 by null

[Silver]

1 minute ago, null said:

fun fact: Map makers actually include small errors they can point to if a competitor have copied their map rather than making their own.

fun fact: Dictionaries do(or at least did) the same thing

[Zopper]

34 minutes ago, Michael Tucker said:

Again no disrespect, I'm just an average EUC rider giving my own perspective of the described situation. Information and data presentation, to me, is like Wikipedia or the news, where these are single convenient places where I can go and believe what I read. And just like Wikipedia or CNN, I can't see myself paying for that presentation of facts.

Yet even Wikipedia is fighting against plagiarism. It doesn’t matter if/what any actor gains or loses. Plagiarism is unethical and there is no way around it. 

[RagingGrandpa]

But can we really ride such a high horse regarding IP rights, in the context of the Chinese-designed EUC's we're promoting? (Especially Veteran?!)

[AtlasP]

On 12/8/2020 at 1:33 PM, Silver said:

I know you said to exclude copyright from this discussion, but there is a reason that you cannot own a copyright on facts. Map makers can't accuse someone of plagiarism just because a map contains all of the same cities on it. They own the way the map is colored or styled. You say you want him to replace the data with legitimately gathered data but if all of the information from your comparison table is factual would he not just come to the same numbers you did?

I am by no means unsympathetic to your position but I don't think I should need to give you credit if I tell someone the MTen3 has a top speed of 23mph instead of 25mph

It is easy to expect/visualize a scenario in which the manufacturers provide consistent, unambiguous spec sheets and resellers can easily rely on and republish this information such that all the information everywhere lines up. In such a hypothetical scenario anyone creating their own such project would eventually end up with the same info/numbers.

Unfortunately this is simply not true for the current EUC market. The state of documentation by manufacturers is a contradictory mess, then on top of this they're constantly revising their hardware without acknowledging this publicly or updating their documentation, and there are huge gaps in what numbers they provide at all leaving individual retailers to fill in the gaps providing yet more numbers which don't reconcile with each other. It was exactly this situation which is what prompted the initial creation of my table, as I was frustrated at trying to figure out what was correct/true and make informed purchasing decisions.

See for yourself. Here are three competing table/database/spreadsheet projects:

• https://www.electricunicycles.eu/catalogs-products
• http://www.checkmypages.com/db2web/euc/index.php?tab=euc_model
• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T9GZJGJf9V24WRLqzVIyXuIeax2mu3fG5fXzHchPMwk/edit#gid=0

If this were so straightforward, we'd all have the same numbers, and yet you'll find that is hardly the case. Within about 30 seconds of poking around the listings you'll find conflicting numbers between them *everywhere*. And this is NOT because the others are blatantly "bad"-in most cases one could find a reference/citation for whatever number you find on any of them. So it comes down to their individual methodologies and standards and how they choose to parse/reconcile the conflicting source data. And so you have a scenario where there are a bunch of these projects each with different numbers all over the place, except Jimmy's miraculously aligns with just one of them perfectly.

--

Also there is a fundamental difference between repeating facts, and for example republishing large percentage of a dataset wherein the value is largely a product of its compilation/curation--you can't just reprint the Guinness Book of World Records and claim it as your own because it's "just facts". Incidentally a decent portion of copyright law revolves around this, although it is just obvious and applicable pertaining to the moral considerations surrounding plagiarism completely independent of copyright law.

Edited March 27, 2021 by AtlasP

[Silver]

1 hour ago, AtlasP said:

Also there is a fundamental difference between repeating facts, and for example republishing large portions of a data set wherein the value is largely a product of its compilation/curation

For sure, and I think Jimmy should have just asked you(it's the nice thing to do right or wrong). But, with a data set of less than 30 and it being formatted differently I think it's a bit more in the gray area between the two.  

[Brendan "nog3" Halliday]

No disrespect intended here mate, your work certainly is useful and I can totally understand why you'd feel like you have been kicked in the guts when something you've worked on is copied and attribution is not applied correctly. 

However this assumption of poor faith on behalf of Jimmy without trying to contact him and instead of contacting him directly and instead blowing it up into _a thing_ doesn't sit well with me. 

If you'd contacted him and he'd blown you off, totally fire a salvo like this. But communication is a two way street and it doesn't seem like you've attempted communication here.

[AtlasP]

On 12/8/2020 at 6:58 PM, Brendan "nog3" Halliday said:

No disrespect intended here mate, your work certainly is useful and I can totally understand why you'd feel like you have been kicked in the guts when something you've worked on is copied and attribution is not applied correctly. 

However this assumption of poor faith on behalf of Jimmy without trying to contact him and instead of contacting him directly and instead blowing it up into _a thing_ doesn't sit well with me. 

If you'd contacted him and he'd blown you off, totally fire a salvo like this. But communication is a two way street and it doesn't seem like you've attempted communication here.

I don't know how to make this any more clear. If you've got an idea for a project, and three of the steps include:

1. Copy someone else's work
2. Paste your own referral links over their links
3. Write a scummy and intellectually dishonest attribution to evade/misrepresent the actual source

With that combination you have firmly passed "honest mistake" territory or the victim owing you anything in how they choose to handle the situation, and deserve to get called out. I refuse to be victim-blamed for calling public attention to this. Not to mention he perpetrated this for an audience of 20,000(!) people without any hesitation. Here I am calling him out on a narrow enthusiast forum where 25 people are going to see it or care (hyperbole, the point stands). And yet somehow I'm the bad guy? You've gotta be kidding me.

This person has demonstrated that they will cross commonly understood standards of decency in the blind pursuit of building their brand/media empire. That information is of direct interest to the community, both as casual media consumers and particularly to other generous content creators here who may wish to be more careful as a result.

Edited December 13, 2020 by AtlasP

[Brendan "nog3" Halliday]

8 hours ago, AtlasP said:

I don't know how to make this any more clear. If you've got an idea for a project, and three of the steps include:

1. Copy someone else's work
2. Paste your own referral links over it
3. Write a scummy and intellectually dishonest attribution to evade/misrepresent the actual source

With that combination you have firmly passed "honest mistake" territory or the victim owing you anything, and deserve to get called out. I refuse to be victim-blamed for calling public attention to this. Not to mention he perpetrated this for an audience of 20,000(!) people without any hesitation. Here I am calling him out on a narrow enthusiast forum where 25 people are going to see it or care (hyperbole, the point stands). And yet somehow I'm the bad guy? You've gotta be kidding me.

This person has demonstrated that they will cross commonly understood standards of decency in the blind pursuit of building their brand/media empire. That information is of direct interest to the community, both as casual media consumers and particularly to other generous content creators here who may wish to be more careful as a result.

I unequivocally do not support plagiarism and to be clear am not saying you are to blame for what has happened (ala victim-blaming). All I am saying is that instead of escalating straight to the nuclear option you should speak to Jimmy first which going by your responses so far all I can assume is that you haven't tried.

People do dumb things without considering the consequences or complete follow-through sometimes and as fellow members of the EUC community and humanity we should be trying to give them the benefit of the doubt first. People don't respond well to outright escalation and personally had my work been duplicated like this I'd be asking for attribution from the person responsible directly before posting it publicly on forums/social media.

[shellac]

Also from a purely practical standpoint I’m not sure how often he checks this forum. He might not see your post for a long while, if ever. 

[Jimmy Chang]

@AtlasP I want to apologize for any grief that my website may have caused you.

I admit that one of my inspirations was your spreadsheet.

For those unaware, here are the two sites that are being discussed:

Jimmy: https://eucguide.com/euc-comparison-tool/

AtlasP: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=5C7F7C96B9CB240D!453580&ithint=file,xlsx&authkey=!AH72KLYXambSLHc

We drew ideas and inspiration from a number of places including sites like electric scooter guide also: https://electric-scooter.guide/comparisons/compare-electric-scooters/

We used your original spreadsheet as a starting point in the early stages to start our interactive tool. Since then we have made significant changes to formatting and data.

Residual data from your spreadsheet appeared in prior versions of our chart. I'm sorry for that plagiarism. That was wrong.

I should have been more careful to check and cite my sources more accurately. I have since gone back to do that. I have reviewed and updated all the data on my table to make sure that the data shown on my site is only compiled from manufacturer or distributor websites and not from your chart. Of course, I'm not perfect so if you find any residual data that you believe belongs to you, please let me know and I'll make changes.

I have given credit to you below the table and have left a l link to your site.

I check this forum very infrequently but you know how to reach me directly.

The EUC community is small. My goal is to grow it and to spread the joy that these amazing devices bring to me and my family. I hope the changes I have made are to your satisfaction. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. I hope we can ride again some day.

Jimmy

[Demian B]

Great tone and attitude in this response.  It was unfortunate to see this conflict between two who both seem interested in providing important information to the EUC community.

[mike_bike_kite]

On 12/8/2020 at 10:07 PM, AtlasP said:

Here are three competing table/database/spreadsheet projects:

• https://www.electricunicycles.eu/catalogs-products
• http://www.checkmypages.com/db2web/euc/index.php?tab=euc_model
• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1T9GZJGJf9V24WRLqzVIyXuIeax2mu3fG5fXzHchPMwk/edit#gid=0

I didn't realise we were competing! I just did my system (the 2nd one) for fun and because it was a natural extension of another project I was doing.

[AtlasP]

@Jimmy Chang- I formally accept and appreciate your apology and the resolution outlined; thank you. (I will update the original post.)

(If I'm completely frank, I think the term "residual data" is spurious/downright misleading relative to what I believe I could demonstrate was the scope/majority-percentage of original data that was used. But ultimately I'm going to let that verbiage slide since I am pleased to see an explicit acknowledgment and apology over at least the fundamental issue, which I do applaud.)

--

To anyone else who may still be reading -

It is unfortunate that because of people's general fatigue over 'internet outrage culture' (which I can sympathize with), then even when a case was as clear-cut as this, many people's first reaction was simply to mentally categorize it as 'drama' and either ignore or even try to downplay or dismiss the situation. In this instance I had presented a straightforward outline of events, clear evidence, and simple/reasonable proposed steps to resolve; held my ground (even with the mix of proverbial crickets and some frankly bizarre responses); and ultimately was proven right and had the situation properly addressed/resolved. But I can't say the process and general community response or lack thereof wasn't disheartening to go through, and I could easily see other contributors not standing up/not holding their ground or even just saying 'screw it' and walking away from everything if faced with going through a similar experience (I'd be lying if I said the thought hadn't occurred to me as a result of this)--which is generally bad for everyone if we reach that state.

Instead I urge everyone to support our great community contributors (particularly if they ever face something unfortunate like this)--from 'that mod who's always first to respond to account issues'/really the many great mods here, to 'the guy who knows everything about tires' to 'the guys who know everything about batteries' to 'the guy who knows everything about riding in extreme temperatures' to 'the guy who knows everything about soft pedal modes' to 'the guys who know everything about suspensions', etc, etc--you all know who these people are, and you must know our community would be worse off without their participation/contributions.

Edited March 31, 2021 by AtlasP

[AtlasP]

On 12/12/2020 at 3:09 PM, mike_bike_kite said:

I didn't realise we were competing! I just did my system (the 2nd one) for fun and because it was a natural extension of another project I was doing.

I promise no antagonism was intended with the word 'competing' which was just meant in the colloquial sense of 'multiple offerings in the same space/generally offering the same thing'. :-)

Edited December 13, 2020 by AtlasP