I don’t understand why you replied to me.

Yeah, I mean they are development kits after all. They’re not really intended for consumers, they’re intended to build software that supports specific hardware components.

Yes. They provide that option already. However, this particular channel was not distributed that way.

It’s a program with audio files that are distributed via RSS.

Takes a second for your clicks to come back from MS servers.

with a new version of outlook that is basically a web app on desktop

Oh you got the EdgeBook!

Yes, by allowing you to download the video file to the browser.

That is not what “expressly” means. “Expressly” means they’ve delivered you personal permission to download videos. Add this to the slew of words you don’t understand.

You physically cannot download files to a browser. A browser is a piece of software. Downloads are stored on your local storage device.

This snippet of legal terms didn’t really reinforce any of your points.

Except the part where it said downloading videos is against their terms of service? Which was my only point?

This is such a wild conversation and ridiculous mental gymnastics. I think we’re done here.

…I can read just fine. I have no idea what your point is. Did YT expressly authorize you to download videos?

No it is not.

You are not allowed to […] access, reproduce, download, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, alter, modify or otherwise use any part of the Service or any Content except: (a) as expressly authorized by the Service; or (b) with prior written permission from YouTube and, if applicable, the respective rights holders.

https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=US&template=terms

You out of all people, who likes to rail against people using wrong definitions, should realise this.

I do. You do not.

that’s just it: they’re the same thing

A youtube video and a podcast are the same thing…? This is the logic you want to go with? At this point I think it’s pretty clear you’re being irrational and I cannot reason you out of a position you didn’t reason yourself into. Have a nice day.

A little bit statics of my kernel-work at the end:

Signed-off patches: 518 Reviewed and Acked patches: 253 Tested patches: 80

You might say not the greatest achievement for seven years comparing to some other developers. Perhaps. But I meant each of these tags, be sure.

Everything on the internet is “downloaded” to your device

No it is not. You’re using wrong definitions to back up other wrong definitions.

“Download” means to make a copy and store it on your local device.

You are attempting to split hairs based on distribution

This is not just semantics or “splitting hairs” or pedantic. How it’s distributed is a fundamental property of what a podcast is.

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

You could argue that calling a live show a podcast is technically incorrect:

…why would I do that?

but thanks to language continuing to adapt to its environment…

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

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

Podcasts were containerized (aka offline) recordings of these.

Podcast are not necessarily offline. You can stream them.

Many radio shows may and do have video feeds but that does not prevent them from being called radio shows.

Nor does it prevent it from being a podcast. What prevents it being a podcast is not being distributed as a podcast…

No. It does not. It has podcasts. And some of those podcasts have an optional video component.

Adding video doesn’t make it not a podcast. Not distributing it as a podcast makes it not a podcast.

Okay, well then, according to your own “respected sources”, this is also not a podcast, so go on with yourself.

It’s not subjective at all, and it’s not just semantics. There is a tangible difference, the implications of which we’ve seen on this very OP.

…yes? What about it?

Are you aware Wikipedia has sources?

Then cite the sources, there’s no reason to use Wikipedia as an unnecessary middleman.

Cites dictionaries

Once again I’m going to ask you to appeal to a sense of logic and reason instead of authority. These definitions make zero sense.

For example your second source says “downloaded over the internet” and since YouTube doesn’t allow you to download videos, YT videos would be omitted from that definition.

It’s often lonely advocating for the right thing.