> In either case -- no review process, or a failed review process -- the failure is definitionally systemic.

Ortho and grammar errors should have been corrected, but do you really expect a review process to identify that a diagram is a copy from another one some rando already published on the internet years ago?

▲

pointlessone 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not just a copy. It’s a caricature of a copy with a plenty of nonsense in it: typos and weird “text”, broken arrows, etc. Even a cursory look gives a feeling that something’s fishy.

▲

tharos47 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Weird text was already deemed acceptable by microsoft in their documentation as they machine translated most screenshots instead of recreating them in different locales, leading to the same problems as this image.

▲

toong 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"Legal reviewed it and did not flag any issues!"

	▲	kuhaku22 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is the same Microsoft that promised to indemnify any of its customers sued over copyright lawsuits as a result of using its AIs. [0] So I'm sure legal reviewed it the same way, saying "Yep, our war chest is still ample". [0]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-defend-customer...

▲

sznio 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No. I'd expect that "continvouclous morging" gets caught.

▲

logifail 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Shouldn't "where are we sourcing our content" be part of any publication review process?

▲

clort 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

plenty of people on the internet recognised it immediately, so sure, he may have been a rando when he created it, but not so much 15 years later..

	▲	Freak_NL 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Just that tiny image on his blog was enough for me to go "oh yeah, I used his diagram to explain this type of git workflow to colleagues a decade ago". Someone should have spotted that right away.
	▲	p_ing 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Did the one MSFT employee that “reviewed” it know of this image? If not, it doesn’t matter how many people “on the Internet” recognized this image. I’ll never understand the implied projection. (I don’t think this was reviewed closely if at all)

▲

ahoka 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. This is expected at any serious company as intellectual property violations can have serious consequences.

▲

michaelt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Here is the original: https://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/

Here is the slop copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20251205141857/https://learn.mic...

The 'Time' axis points the wrong way, and is misspelled, using a non-existent letter - 'Tim' where the m has an extra hump.

It's pretty clear this wasn't reviewed at all.