I watched the full video and I do feel for Alphonso Dunn, who is clearly upset and feels his work has been stolen, I don't think the evidence supports declaring plagerism publicly.
Some of the headers were similar enough to justify the suspicion but a legal demand to the publishers to see the rest of the book and possibly delay/prevent publication would have been sensible. Instead, he has - without seeing the whole book himself - used his substantial platform to attack Jake Parker and damage his book before anyone has read it. If he's wrong, he's responsible for substantial defamation of character and loss of income.
Watching the flip through again without sound, he isn't really comparing many pages - and most of those pages look very different, lots of Jake's are skipped through, and Alphonso is having to scroll back and forth in his own book to find the comparisons, which would suggest that the structure/order of the books are different. People say he's not claiming fundementals, but he does complain about very standard techniques, demos and terms, even if he came up with them independently.
I think it is a prime example of confirmation bias. Suspicions raised by the wording of the example pages meant he looked through the flip through ignoring all the differences, cherry picking the similarities, and deciding that any differences in those pages were subterfuge to cover up the similarities.
Jake likes Alphonso's book, and it is possible that his familiarity or agreement with Alphonso's explanations has influenced his book, consciously or subconsciously and it can be looked at legally to see if a line was crossed. But declaring that it was substantially copied and in bad faith, I think that was unfair.
Clearly he was upset, but we are a few days now from the initial upload, and he hasn't ammended his title, thumbnail or told his fans to calm down and wait to hear Jake's explanation or see the rest of the book.
I watched the full video and I do feel for Alphonso Dunn, who is clearly upset and feels his work has been stolen, I don't think the evidence supports declaring plagerism publicly.
Some of the headers were similar enough to justify the suspicion but a legal demand to the publishers to see the rest of the book and possibly delay/prevent publication would have been sensible. Instead, he has - without seeing the whole book himself - used his substantial platform to attack Jake Parker and damage his book before anyone has read it. If he's wrong, he's responsible for substantial defamation of character and loss of income.
Watching the flip through again without sound, he isn't really comparing many pages - and most of those pages look very different, lots of Jake's are skipped through, and Alphonso is having to scroll back and forth in his own book to find the comparisons, which would suggest that the structure/order of the books are different. People say he's not claiming fundementals, but he does complain about very standard techniques, demos and terms, even if he came up with them independently.
I think it is a prime example of confirmation bias. Suspicions raised by the wording of the example pages meant he looked through the flip through ignoring all the differences, cherry picking the similarities, and deciding that any differences in those pages were subterfuge to cover up the similarities.
Jake likes Alphonso's book, and it is possible that his familiarity or agreement with Alphonso's explanations has influenced his book, consciously or subconsciously and it can be looked at legally to see if a line was crossed. But declaring that it was substantially copied and in bad faith, I think that was unfair.
Clearly he was upset, but we are a few days now from the initial upload, and he hasn't ammended his title, thumbnail or told his fans to calm down and wait to hear Jake's explanation or see the rest of the book.