Your response is a common one I have seen time and again when they are trying to bow out while saving face. It’s not subtle.

Simple question: can you listen to music on YouTube? Followup question: is it still a video if the content is only the song? What would you call it?

I sincerely hope you learned something today and will be less of a pedant online. Cheers.

If it’s not, maybe you can tell me what a podcast is, and how it’s different from a YouTube video?

If I can listen to the YouTube video without needing it for visual aid… that’s just it: they’re the same thing. This wraps nicely into the video podcast thing you were whinging about earlier.

…why would I do that?

Considering your stance on this topic… why wouldn’t you? It’d be on brand.

This is not “language adaptation”, this is a complete erosion of the meaning of the word.

I really was hoping you’d say this. Semantics. Again. Language isn’t some dead unchanging thing. It morphs and adjusts with culture and technological changes.

By your logic you must surely lament the death of ancient ‘proper’ English circa 5th century before all those awful changes came about.

We have words for videos, they’re called “videos”, which are fundamentally different from a “podcast”.

Synonyms exist. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge them might be your business… however the fact you understood the medium being spoken about suggests quite plainly that language has succeeded here.

Podcast are not necessarily offline. You can stream them.

Ah, but initially - one name was for a live stream and the other for a recording. Streaming is ambiguous: are you streaming live or a recording? Thankfully: we do not make such a differentiation any more. I find it somewhat interesting your stance allows for such a difference to be ignored, though. Perhaps, given time, you will moderate on the remainder of this terminology. After all it’s a rather silly hill to die upon.

Again semantics. You are attempting to split hairs based on distribution opposed to type. This is like being a pedant over someone referring to tissues as a Kleenex despite it not being that particular brand. Podcasts were ambiguous back when they were still new, too.

Shoutcast servers were/hosted digital broadcasts. Podcasts were containerized (aka offline) recordings of these. You could argue that calling a live show a podcast is technically incorrect: but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment… You’d actually just be out of date or misinformed.

Semantics. A podcast is and was something that was typically long format akin to a talk show - that was something that could be listened to without requiring you to watch it. It is not audio exclusive. Many radio shows may and do have video feeds but that does not prevent them from being called radio shows.

It worked on my box!

To be fair a certain security company was in global news for exactly that same send it behavior. Why waste precious resources on multiple instances? Investors hate waste. 😅

This. They provide outstanding insights and the articles they provide alongside the data are quite good.

Just posting facts boss. If that bothers you then maybe do a fact check beforehand.

To respond though: most people typically don’t need a daily driver knife… and if they do: a pen knife or box cutter is probably sufficient. Generally speaking- the less dangerous things in immediate reach of someone having a breakdown is probably better and likely saves lives.

If I’m not mistaken they don’t exactly take kindly to even letter openers. So you’d be incorrect.

“Oh yeah, already did man! And not to toot my own horn (again) but I gotta say…”

People are converting. Not entirely on its own merit, of course: Its competition repeatedly is enshitifying the user experience and pushing people to try other options. Combine that with steam and their work on linux’s compatibility layer and you get most of the movement.

That said once you hit a certain market share developers become more willing to port or provide binaries for the growing platform. It can accelerate further from there. Linux mainstream isn’t there yet but it’s starting to get in striking distance of its competition.

I’ll admit it was shocking to see their change in stance… and it needs more eyes on it. Your explanation seems plausible though.

I sat through the video and didn’t have too many issues. Considering the delivery of most YouTube creators are biased I expect a small amount of sensationalism… which admittedly was there but wasn’t overbearing.

I prolly wouldn’t sub the guy but the information was at least well represented and explained.

Cabal is a colorful choice of word. Honestly I’d describe the recent Mozilla actions as insidious; frankly. This recent change is, if anything, a clear signal that they are willing to sacrifice the user experience for profit and… well… we know how that goes.

Seems unusual that this post is getting downvoted.

Private investment firms are already dropping inventory. It’s sad to say but housing has become a pump and dump somehow. The unfortunate thing is the people who get rugged will end up being people who bought from them.

…until morale improves? Dually noted lol.

I said as much multiple times.

The point of that statement was to highlight that it is possible to construct something that does not allow for consolidation and corruption of power… which it did. Your view simply was looking at present day examples which, as you correctly identified, do not work. That doesn’t mean nothing can work however … which is why I disagreed.

It’s a fun mental exercise to what if and try to construct something that could work. Can’t tear something down without considering what rebuilding it would look like.

I disagree. It’s about execution - creating an environment that is resistant to corrosion. A standing force can absolutely be viewed in that manner - which is why it cannot be a single static standing force.

The UN is the right idea but it needs teeth. And it needs the teeth to be double sided. If boots are on the ground peacekeeping they should be without bias and secondary interest. An attack on a peacekeeper has no guarantee of the creed nor country of origin of that keeper.

Peacekeeping should be like a draft. Every country that participates must provide and maintain a set number of rolling participants. These people will serve and train initially in humanitarian deployments with others… half way through their ‘term’ they should be moved to peacekeeping duties. This is idealized but would be good for both building trust amongst peacekeepers and goodwill towards them. This solves the military portion (roughly) - I have a lot of thoughts on this and believe it to be solvable… it just won’t be. No country gets to benefit therefore it has no merit.

That covered the military side… when talking about the economic side: the peacekeepers (let’s say un for simplicity) carry the ability to (by vote) censure a country and cut it off from direct trade / support. At that time any trade is then routed through the UN and it becomes the middleman. This allows economic pressures to be precisely controlled on an area. Once that country falls in line, by majority vote, operations are restored. Once again this is idealized and has no obviously advantaged party … so it has no merit and will never occur.

Basically everyone is equally held accountable and equally invested. Of course this means everyone gets a seat at the table and everyone gets one vote. I’m certain we can already see why this has 0 chance of ever happening. Those in power seek to keep it - very few will willingly give some away.

Oh, I’m fully aware. Tribalism is the lizard brain going deeeep in the paint. The problem is this: peaceful culture doesn’t fight back - aggressive culture exploits this: which one thrives? We have systematically bred for and codified our warlike nature. This is the result. Is it fixable? Many have tried. Our history books are littered with both failed attempts and their distorted remains. All I can say for certain is that the way the majority of countries are structured… isn’t it. This is fundamentally why achieving a fix is nearly impossible at scale: tribalism. Even if we are wrong it’s our wrong and we don’t want to lose it. This is rooted in fear of change which from a survival aspect makes sense… but becomes detrimental at scale.

This may not be a popular response but when did the nazi regime stop? When did China stop with it’s cleansing? America and manifest destiny? I could go on… Humanity needs to realize that we are pretty shitty in general and can’t be trusted when it comes to hatred, entitlement, and tribalism.

The solution is a neutral third party with sufficient power to stop any country’s bullshit through economic and military (actual) peacekeeping… which doesn’t exist nor will it ever.

So the short answer is they will stop when the cleansing is complete.

After the deed is done we as ‘civilized’ nations will lament the tragedy and promise change… until the media cycle washes all those sins down the drain and it will be forgotten until next time.