If you are going to be honest about lying by admitting to us that you lied, just state that it was a lie, don't euphemize it as marketing. Otherwise the "honesty" just comes of as manipulation.
I have no doubts your claim as it was written in text was correct. The lie was by layout and usage of company and university logos. These kinds of "we are trusted by" and "in cooperation with" sections are common, it's what you're making in that section, and the usage of logos in those sections always mean the same thing: these organisations use/trust our software.
Now, I know from experience, you probably want to hear from their legal team (or have a contract which make it explicit) before putting a company's logo on your website as an endorsement - but I doubt they'll sue you
They admitted it was for marketing purposes, and I added that rather than to euphemize it as marketing, they should instead admit that they lied, otherwise their attempt at honesty comes of as manipulative. It is possible to tell a lie by the usage of logos and layout, not only in text.
This has now been removed from their website, you can see their original layout here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230625170119/https://www.open-...
I don't attribute it to stupidity. (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)
They tried to use other organizations logos in their "loved by section" to make their product seem more trustworthy than it was. By using smart language they could have gotten away with it in case of a lawsuit, and most companies don't even bother to go after stuff like this. By the time a lawsuit could have been relevant, their landing page would have changed. It's because I respect their competence that I attribute it as intentional.
Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about what someone does with some large company/organization logos on their website, it's not that I'm trying to stop some misuse of their trademarks. But if you chat with us about your page, and try to be honest about that the section there is toeing the line of truth, don't call it marketing, just tell us you lied on your webpage. It's not the end of the world to tell a lie on the internet.
Sorry, this false dichotomy is one of my pet peeves. It should read "Never attribute to something that which is adequately explained by something else."
It might as well be, "Never attribute to hunger that which can be explained by incompetence." Is it easier to see why that fails as any sort of useful proverb?
It doesn't need to. The false dichotomy is presented in the phrasing.
>what third reason would be relevant in this case, exactly?
It's not a third reason, which is why you are confused. It is a third possibility, not a third reason. That third possibility is that both malice and stupidity are present. In such a case, if stupidity could adequately explain the action, the saying suggests ruling out malice, which would be incorrect. That is precisely why it is a false dichotomy.
It's not a strawman, you just haven't thought about it correctly.
No, it isn't, the phrasing is very clear: if you think it's malice, also consider stupidity. It's an implication - if "A", then "B". It doesn't say anything about the case of "not A".
You're just making shit up now, with personal insults ("you're confused", "you haven't thought about it correctly") added as a filler for your weak reasoning.
That is not what it is saying. "Never attribute to malice..." has an entirely different meaning from merely considering stupidity as an alternative as you're suggesting.
It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice. That rules out malice as an explanation. It doesn't say, "maybe don't attribute [action] to malice," or "also consider stupidity," it says, very clearly, "never attribute to malice", which means "do not ever attribute to malice..." So yes, you do seem to be confused about the very clear meaning of this saying.
No, it does not. You are blatantly misquoting the original statement. Since you're so stuck up on the literal phrasing, let's be precise: never attribute to malice what can be adequatly explained by stupidity.
Which means, if you are attributing some action to malice, then stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice. And if not, then feel free to attribute it to malice! This is in no way "rules out" malice as an explanation. This is merely a statement on how to evaluate intentions in light of limited evidence - it says nothing about the truth, as human knowledge is always limited by available information, especially in human relations.
It is a heuristic that works well, because people generally have a tendency to see malice in others' hurtful actions, and the expression of that attribution may ironically cause conflict and real malice. So to assume stupidity is to be kind and give people a chance to learn.
Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. We agree, and you finally get it. You are describing the false dichotomy perfectly: "If it is adequately be explained by stupidity, then don't attribute it to malice." That is the false dichotomy, because both could be present at the same time.
>You are blatantly misquoting the original statement
No, I used ellipses for a reason: "Never attribute to malice..." means there is more to the quote, but I am focusing on this specific part. I could have made that more clear in my writing though. At any rate, we're done here, because we agree on the meaning of the saying.
No, we don't agree, and it is not me who finally got it. You explicitly wrote: "It means exactly what it says: never attribute [action] to malice" which I explicitly disagreed with. Either you have changed your mind, in which case you have no business acting as if you were right all along, or we don't agree.
> I could have made that more clear in my writing though
Yes, you could. Nobody can read your mind, only your words. Try not being so arrogant next time.
Well, which is it? Do we not agree, or have I "finally got it" ("it" being, I assume, what you're trying to convey)? Because if I finally got what you're saying, then that suggests we would be in agreement. Or maybe you mean you've changed your position and I "finally got" your original argument, but now you're onto a new one. If that is the case, then please clarify your new position so I can finally get that one as well.
The saying presents a false dichotomy, which is highlighted here:
>...stop and consider whether stupidity is an adequate explanation. And if it is, then don't attribute it to malice
This is a false dichotomy because it is saying if stupidity is present, then don't attribute it to malice. But both can be present at the same time, in which case rejecting malice would be incorrect. Do you understand now? It is very simple, and this is what I wrote toward the top of the thread. You're grasping at straws here, and my position has not changed the entire time.
Please, read the saying again, read our discussion again, and think about it before you respond. What you're writing is incorrect.
* CVs are generally longer - 2-4 sides. Resumes are more of a one page and done thing.
* Resumes often include a mission statement or similar. CVs don't - you'd put that stuff on a 'cover letter', if at all
* CVs are generally not adjusted per job - it's everything, with only the older stuff abbreviated. Whereas resumes are tailored.
In the UK I created CVs, in the US I created Resumes.
Same thing, different names.
However, as an American, I've never heard of a résumé including a mission statement or being adjusted per job. As you said, they're very short documents. I've always seen them just giving the same factual history of the person's employment/education, and the person similarly attaches a cover letter tailored to the specific job, repeating some highlights and how it qualifies him and saying how perfect this job is for him.
[1] Sidebar: Every bit of résumé advice is "fighting words", with diehard adherents on opposing sides. In this instance, "1 page" can be taken as "What have they been doing with their life? Discard it.", while "2 page" can be taken as "Wasting my time. Discard it.". The most successful strategy is hard to achieve: know the personal pet-peeves of the recipient, and adjust accordingly.
I don't mean to sound rude. But, can you explain what you mean by "trusted by students and employees from top universities and companies worldwide" while showing some university/company logos? How can such a new project make those claims? Was it released elsewhere privately? Looking at the git history, I see it was created 2 days ago, in a single commit.