You know it’s a long day when I brew a coffee at 16:30ā¦ š„±
I am constantly torn when it comes to Google. I don’t like their data collecting strategy but the design of their products is very attractive and appeals to me which makes me want to use themā¦
Mid morning coffee in Cheltenhamās newest espresso bar. Tastes as good as it looks. āļø
Goodbye Your Majesty, and thank you for everything. š¢š¬š§
I have never known life without the Queen, she was a women of great integrity and dedication. I never met her but I will miss her in a way I canāt quite put into words. May God bless her as she finally gets to rest in His presence.
The new default theme in Obsidian is a big improvement, but I think I still prefer Craft. The only thing missing is some kind of graph view.
New Obsidian theme looks good, but I think I still prefer Craft. I do miss the graph view though, especially the local graph for the relationships with the current file.
A spade is a spade, letās call things by what they are
The last few years has seen the prolific rise of the content creator the people who create content for other people to consume. I dislike this phrase. I donāt like it for a few reasons, but the primary one is I donāt consume content and I hate to break it to you, but neither do you.
If you read books they are written by an author, someone who has taken a lot of time and expended a lot of energy in dedication to writing. Yet we donāt call books content, we recognise them for what they are. Why then do we call blog posts or articles published on the web content? It takes just as much time and energy to write a series of posts on a blog as it does to write a book. Those people are not writing content, they are also authors they just happen to author a website instead of a book. So lets call them authors or writers.
The same goes for video. We donāt classify TV programmes and films as content, they are made by teams of people including directors, actors, presenters, writers, sound engineers, editors, and many more that Iāve missed. Why then are YouTubers classified as content creators? Are they not film makers? More often that not they do all of the roles that whole teams do for films.
Likewise with podcasts, another form of ācontentā that I āconsumeā. The skill and effort that goes into producing a podcast is the same as the skill and effort that goes into producing a radio show. We listen to radio shows just as we do podcasts, we donāt consume them. Why then do we not call the people who create them by the terms they deserve? The people who make radio shows are referred to as DJās, presenters, or broadcasters. Why do we not use these terms to talk about people who create podcasts? They may not broadcast their shows by a signal and mast, but they are still broadcasting their shows for all to hear on the internet (just as most radio stations do today).
I think itās time we started to move away from the generic terms we use to define people who create and publish things on the internet and instead start using the respected terms we have been using for decades in the more ātraditionalā industries. It does a disservice to the skills of those creators when the vast majority are very talented people and deserve the credibility that comes with proper names for their professions.
A spade is a spade, letās call things by what they are
The last few years has seen the prolific rise of the content creator the people who create content for other people to consume. I dislike this phrase. I donāt like it for a few reasons, but the primary one is I donāt consume content and I hate to break it to you, but neither do you.
If you read books they are written by an author, someone who has taken a lot of time and expended a lot of energy in dedication to writing. Yet we donāt call books content, we recognise them for what they are. Why then do we call blog posts or articles published on the web content? It takes just as much time and energy to write a series of posts on a blog as it does to write a book. Those people are not writing content, they are also authors they just happen to author a website instead of a book. So lets call them authors or writers.
The same goes for video. We donāt classify TV programmes and films as content, they are made by teams of people including directors, actors, presenters, writers, sound engineers, editors, and many more that Iāve missed. Why then are YouTubers classified as content creators? Are they not film makers? More often that not they do all of the roles that whole teams do for films.
Likewise with podcasts, another form of ācontentā that I āconsumeā. The skill and effort that goes into producing a podcast is the same as the skill and effort that goes into producing a radio show. We listen to radio shows just as we do podcasts, we donāt consume them. Why then do we not call the people who create them by the terms they deserve? The people who make radio shows are referred to as DJās, presenters, or broadcasters. Why do we not use these terms to talk about people who create podcasts? They may not broadcast their shows by a signal and mast, but they are still broadcasting their shows for all to hear on the internet (just as most radio stations do today).
I think itās time we started to move away from the generic terms we use to define people who create and publish things on the internet and instead start using the respected terms we have been using for decades in the more ātraditionalā industries. It does a disservice to the skills of those creators when the vast majority are very talented people and deserve the credibility that comes with proper names for their professions.
Iāve just heard someone use the phrase āminor attractedā. Excuse me but thatās called paedophilia and should never be tried to be legitimised by changing the language.