I like your line of thought, but this is no refutation of IIFYM or "eat less if you're fat" unless they performed this substitution isocalorically. Eating fast sugars instead of equivalent slow starches makes me crave more sooner, and eat more.
Unsurprisingly, your version-2 story is as close as possible to version-1 and the demonstrated proof of version-1's lies. This is why it's nice to hold in reserve some additional evidence when you expose a liar - so you can catch them lying in version-2 and completely destroy their public credibility.
I hope this doesn't happen to you, but in my experience version-2 is usually only a partial confession.
Good luck recovering from this with a lesson learned: you don't look bad when you shared credit and honestly represent your contributions. People will already associate you with the good thing you brought to their attention, deployed and customized for them, etc.
Public shaming is an appropriate reaction to demonstrable theft of credit, and works by like mechanisms as the original offense. The threat of being exposed for building a fake reputation can preserve the (relative) reliability of "judge me by my portfolio" by making the expected reputational gain from plagiarism neutral or negative.
I'm not a fan of "protected category" hiring rules in any case. If good old people are underpaid, then let your company profit by hiring them. I suppose a tempting compromise is to not allow companies to solicit disclosure of age etc (so people can leave the year off their degree, show only most recent experience, etc), but honestly I think it might be better if those companies that really will only hire young would advertise the fact and save everyone some time.
Starting from only a very small real disadvantage in ability, any externally distinctive group can quickly seem a 'market for lemons' - for example, maybe the oldsters you've seen so far across the interview table are unrepresentatively bad, because the good ones are working and not interviewing. So don't think because you've seen 4 weak candidates of 50+ years old that it's not worth looking at the next.
Sure, new-tech drones should respond to a targeted ping w/ serial number or similar. Simple challenge/response crypto could avoid cloning/spoofing. Enforcement of registration: no response = police will follow the drone to its owner and ticket (else impound). Physical serial number for legacy drones.
($862M is a maximum to be decided in the next phase of the jury trial; in the final phase the damages will be tripled if the infringement is judged willful). Case is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc; Apple claimed the patent was invalid but the jury disagreed. WARF claims they approached Apple to negotiate a license and were "ignored".
Nice characterizations but the conclusion was only empty "human face" platitudes for me. I'll take the reminder that we should believe in the end result we're accomplishing and not only obsess about making the tools we're working with or system we're working on better as an end in itself.
And it also doesn't seem to recognize that for some (many?) that tech can be an end by itself. If your goal is business or to ship an app, this might not be true. But there should be no shame, no regret, in only being interested in tech for its intrinsic merits, independent of "results".
Hell, this is the reason a lot of programmers begin programming. Personally, this is the reason I started programming and sadly 90% of jobs that are in the industry feel like utter bullshit to me - I simply can't be passionate about that new sports webapp (I hate sports) or inventory management something something. Especially webdev, of which I did most commercially, feels utterly awful to me. Of course those projects are important to someone, they may be passions of many people - just not of me personally. This creates a lot of tension and unease for me as an employee, especially now that us geek programmers are outnumbered by 'professionals', who came here to do jobs for money.
My read: math teaching @Berkeley is in fact horrible and this offended him. He was happy to shame the incumbents and refuse to submit to mediocrity. Naturally he'd prefer to keep his job and reform by example, but his compensation for being fired is that he can righteously expose the corruption on evidence of his firing (and knowing he had this leverage is why he was so uncompromising in pursuing good teaching).