• ulkesh@beehaw.orgEnglish
    2·
    24 days ago

    Interview wasn’t bad. I especially like Torvalds’s take on meetings and interruption of flow.

    • zaph@sh.itjust.works
      91·
      24 days ago

      So since I’ve never owned an iPod I’ve never truly listened to a podcast? Or does the person creating it have to own the iPod?

    • yggstyle@lemmy.world
      71·
      24 days ago

      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.

        • yggstyle@lemmy.world
          31·
          24 days ago

          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podcast is technically incorrect: but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment… You’d actually just be out of date or misinformed.

            • yggstyle@lemmy.world
              11·
              23 days ago

              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.

                • yggstyle@lemmy.world
                  21·
                  23 days ago

                  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.

    • rotopenguin@infosec.pubEnglish
      51·
      23 days ago

      If you aren’t consuming the content on a genuine Apple®️ iPod™️, then it is not a podcast.

    • Chewt@beehaw.org
      3·
      24 days ago

      I don’t think it’s that unreasonable to have something called “video podcast” in the scenario where you have an actual podcast, which also happens to have a video recording available on the internet as well. Sometimes I like to watch the video versions of podcasts to see the facial expressions of the speakers. “video podcast” seems like a natural shortening of “video of a podcast”. I think the important part is that the content is first and foremost a podcast, where it is meant to be listened to. As soon as it stops being possible to listen to the podcast as audio only, for example if they start relying on visuals that can only be seen in the video, then it is no longer a podcast.

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      41·
      24 days ago

      Why call it a podcast? Digital audio interviews existed before the iPod. Just following your logic.

      I guess my point it, why does it matter? We both know what it means. The language has accomplished its goal of communication.

        • DaGeek247@fedia.io
          41·
          24 days ago

          It didn’t actually. If it had, I wouldn’t have pulled up my podcast app to find and listen to this episode, only to find that it didn’t exist.

          Ah. I get it. Pet peeves do be the worst sometimes.