The terminology is art vs content. Anybody talking about "content", by definition, do not actually care about what that content is, just that it is contained into something they charge for.
To me content often implies a kind of volume of work. Always be posting. Don’t miss a few days or your viewers go elsewhere. Lots and lots of content!
The concerns of a product are the salability. Is has to fit perfectly into a 22 mins slot. It can’t upset the wrong people. It has to fit the mood and culture that our advertisers want. Etc.
Of course it implies volume - shipped volume. Which is what you worry about when you think about posting every day: viewers going elsewhere is a commercial worry about your product, it has nothing to do with the quality of your art. When you think in terms of content, art quality becomes an optional byproduct of commercial worries about having product.
This is a great example of when pulling out a dictionary implies that you've lost the argument, because if people were using the word in the same sense as the dictionary definition, you would have no need of the dictionary to “prove” the meaning.
User toyg is using the same definition than Richard Stallman (I tried to find the relevant essay but can't; I just remember RMS also pushed back against "content"). Toyg is not making up a new line of thought, this has been argued before. Not only by Stallman, either, this dislike for the term "content" is also espoused by some here on HN (and I agree, to be clear).
I think it goes beyond latching on the dictionary definition, and really looking into how platform owners see the bits they push around. It's not about being "clever" with words to score a point, but actually about the meaning we want to give art, be it novels, drawings, music or shows/movies.
Also, "platform owners" (or advertisers, as another comment puts it) managed to install this term and so most of us use it, so it's no longer just platform owners. Which is why RMS railed against it.
Your point is valid (and I make a similar one frequently), but it doesn't gain from being presented as good term vs bad term use. It's the context that makes it pejorative.
In the context of advertisers, content is just what you deliver for a price (Netflix, Disney), or against which you slap advertising (Youtube). You want more of it so you can charge more, and care little what fills this content pipeline.
Celentano and Moro are many things, but humble is not one of them... He's a preachy Catholic bore, completely detached from reality; and she's deluded that they're still big stars. They used to be something, but they've long since said anything worth listening to.
Adriano is charismatic (public confirms it, they pay for his songs and movies). Claudia Mori beside being a beautiful actress and singer, was the public relation heart, which paid off very well. When I met them they were funny and happy, also by induction the typical VIP behavior. Everyone has a bad day sometime but Overall,they get a very positive sentiment. Still listening to: in tanto il tempo se ne va ....
So next month and all future months when the government has something it might buy from you, and you would like to sell to them, and you suspended your account telling them that they can’t, so they buy it elsewhere, then what?
"Come on" what? You suspend your account - you tell the government they cannot buy from you - but you still want to sell to them. So at what "any time" are you suggesting people unsuspend it?
a) immediately, so it's always unsuspended, leaving you back in the original position.
b) you hope that after telling the government they cannot buy from you, they contact you to ask you to unsuspend your account so they can buy from you, then you login and unsuspend it, then they buy from you, then you login to report that purchase, and suspend your account again. This doesn't sound like less timewasting.
You're suspending the reporting of your dealings, which implies you've done no business in the previous period. When you do business, you unsuspend and report.
I think you might want to step away from the keyboard for a bit.
Or, someone decided they wanted to redirect the flow of black money through someone else, but couldn't do it internally for some reason; so they called in their FBI friends to make a ruckus. While the guy is busy defending himself, they have an excuse to pick someone else to receive the new stream of gold.
the Cold War started before MAD became a thing. Had the USSR and NATO started a conflict in 1949, nukes would still have to be delivered by (slow, fragile, at heavy risk of interception) plane. ICBMs arrived in the late '50s, and submarine launches in the '60s, at which point MAD became a thing; but even later, all sides largely continued to operate like a conflict would follow traditional engagement patterns, when it came to the basics of planning. Nobody stopped, say, spying activities just because "eh, we'll nuke them all anyway" - if anything, because this allowed for targeted activities that ensured MAD would not get triggered.
The Soviets had a "no first strike" doctrine because they perceived themselves to be the stronger force on the continent. They had a huge standing army and massive numbers of armored vehicles and expected to be able to roll through the fudla gap and across western Europe as they had done through Eastern Europe in the final stages of WWII.
NATO, on the other hand, expected to be overrun by the soviets and used the threat of nuclear counterattack to keep them from trying it. The Soviets built up their own nuclear deterrent to prevent NATO from responding with nukes (the MAD).
If the US/NATO nuclear threat wasn't credible and the NATO armies were no match for the soviet army, then western Europe became a pawn for the soviets, leading the western allies to also invest in conventional arms.
In short: the argument for the conventional forces was that the nuclear threat wasn't really credible because nobody would choose to end the world.
> that is a reason the catholic Church still uses it for things like papal encyclicals.
Nah, it's just because that particular institution tries very hard to be internally consistent, for historical reasons. They immediately publish translations of such documents into "common" languages as well, and that's what non-clerics will actually read.
The macaronic approach was pretty common everywhere, it's a natural stage of evolution - the old language 'holding on' with specialized terminology that would be pointless to replace with more inefficient expressions. Which is why Latin words and expressions are still deployed every day in legal and scientific conversations around all Western countries.
Heavy-industry sites are also extremely discouraged across Europe, outside of very specific zones. If anything, the current shift is about bringing datacentres in that same category.
>If anything, the current shift is about bringing datacentres in that same category.
But datacenters are hardly that? Sure, maybe whatever musk's doing with on-site gas turbines might qualify, but it's hardly representative of datacenters, which are probably closer to light industry or warehouses in terms of local impact.
It is not. But France was very good at ring-fencing their interests very early on, resulting in a somewhat-outsized weight of agricultural policy over the Union budget (since it was, back then, almost non-existent in other areas). After the Eastern expansion, it has become very difficult to change the approach (which is, overall, fundamentally successful - yes, there are issues, but nothing is perfect). Pre-brexit, the UK government would be the only one willing to grandstand on reforming the policy, mostly for reasons of internal propaganda; now it's basically in no-one's interest to touch it.
I think that's the key. This is meant to go up against the Lamborghini SUV and its ilk: a vehicle for the very wealthy who don't really like cars but have to mark their status in everyday interactions. It will sell well.
reply