communism

Given the US adults I see on the internet, I would hazard a guess that they're right.

In general if your OS is intact you can just boot into a live USB and chroot and reinstall grub, worst case scenario if you can't fix it in a less destructive way.

cryptomount -a
insmod normal
normal

But yes, it's super annoying. Especially if you mistype it multiple times and you have to type that in multiple times.

I never stated what was or wasn't moral; I stated what was legal, and stealing is a legalistic term. How can you enforce property ownership, intellectual or material, without law, and legal rights to property?

For the record, I want the abolition of property and of law. I do not believe stealing to be wrong. "Stealing" can only be a legal category if you believe it to be morally neutral.

That definition also makes no sense. If I gift you a laptop I worked hard to afford and you use it, no sane person would call that stealing, even to those to whom stealing is a moral category. That is the same thing as someone using MIT code according to the licence. The original coder gifted the code to the public and said "I explicitly want you to use this however you like, under the sole condition that you credit me." Just like if I gifted you a laptop I'd be saying "I want you to use this laptop however you like."

If that's sincerely how you see plagiarism (ie allowing someone to use your work as part of their work without attribution) then all I can say is that I've never seen anyone else use the term plagiarism that way; and unless either of us knows of a survey quantifying how people use the term, that's as far as we'll get on that front.

Anyway, the conversation is still about BSD, and you keep avoiding the fact that BSD requires attribution. If you are using the Wikipedia definition then it does not satisfy

representation of another person's language ... as one's own original work

Do you or do you not think that BSD/MIT is plagiarism? You seem to be clearly dodging the question. If you don't think it's plagiarism then there's no major disagreement and we can end this conversation.

Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber's> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person's name.

You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).

I don't have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.

No, actually, plagiarism is a legalistic term. If IP law did not exist, neither would plagiarism.

And if you give someone permission to use your IP, and they go ahead and use that permission, it is not plagiarism neither legally nor by any colloquial understanding of the term. That is what happens when someone uses BSD or MIT code in their proprietary software. It is explicitly allowed, by design, by intention.

without attribution

BSD/MIT also don't allow you to not attribute the author of the BSD/MIT code, so that doesn't even make sense. You are perhaps thinking of code released public domain, in which case, again, the author specifically chose that over BSD/MIT, and the main practical difference is not needing to give attribution, so that must be what the original author wanted.

Just direct it into a file, read the script, and run it if you're happy. It's just a shorthand that doesn't require saving the script that will only be used once.

That is definitionally not plagiarising. It follows IP law, which is the opposite of plagiarism.

MIT/BSD also makes the most sense for small/minimal projects where GPL is likely overkill. A 100 line script does not need to be GPL'ed. A small static website does not need to be GPL'ed.

It's not "stealing". It's explicitly allowed. Using IP according to its licence is the opposite of stealing.