Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.
The difference between unusable and inferior was never the cusp of this argument to begin with.
Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:
The logical way to think of this is: You already paid for Plex so both are free for you. Since both are free, just pick the better one.
Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.
One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.
Sunk cost fallacy does not require continued investment. No idea where you got that from. It just requires considering a sunk cost in your decision making.
Literally quoted the inferior part in my original response and specifically mentioned you should just consider both on their merit without considering the sunk cost:
Never said you should switch. Just because you seems to lack reading comprehension skills and misread my comment does not mean I am moving the goalpost. You are using a straw man argument: pretending I argued something I didn’t and debunking that nonexistent argument instead of my real argument.
One valid complaint is that I did ignore switching costs in my shortened explanation. This is a mistake on my part, though it does not affect whether your statement as written is a fallacy. It is.