Although Andy has never needed permission. I suspect he just didn’t say anything until someone asked him. 

He’s also a lazy, sloppy commentator. He’s certainly rich, but I really think his influence comes almost entirely through the network he’s cultivated, and the favors he can get people.

Also Wimbledon is pretty damn decadent as well. But: this is Monte Carlo, which basically exists to give very very rich people a place of extreme luxury in which to shelter their money from taxes. There are no courts in a more decadent location in the world, except maybe the one at the top of the skyscraper in Dubai.

You have understood the point of this post very, very well.

here you go

1) Wade was definitely better than Pierce, 2) despite Wade’s dominance, that series was officiated in just a brutally bad way, and 3) I’m not sure that anyone warped a game and the focus of an opponent the way Jordan in full flight did.

Did no one catch that a reporter says “buzzkill, right?”

Maybe? As a Warriors fan, I guess I just had no expectation of him doing anything significant. I like him, and I’d like to be wrong, but he never seemed like a player worthy of being considered a premier pick. Maybe I’ve missed some quiet level of success however. 

Also the idea the Barnes was a “premier free agent?” Not so sure.

Not a particularly substantive response, but... so what!

Sure, maybe you can publish a book on that: “So What!? The Vital Importance of Growing Up Along the Way.” I’ll buy it.

“Yeah, but... so what? Assuming one even accepts the premise (that Netflix “was supposed to be a different model” and wasn’t), how are any of us harmed by that?”

“In Search of So What: Dirtside’s Quest for Truth and Meaning in a Turbulent World.” (Netflix Documentary, coming soon)

I mean, that part is kind of implicit in, like *every single thing you said?*

Let us recap the substance of our conversation:

Your “so what” was in direct response to my explanation of what I thought the point of the article was; an explanation that included no discussion of harm per se. However, again: the implicit claims of harm are obvious throughout the article, and the points in the article are easily extrapolated into far more explicit…

No, I’m saying very clearly: I think it’s really interesting that Netflix has deviated from the various expectations of it, and I think exploring that fact, and the reasons why, are interesting in and of themselves. You seem to think— based on the fact that you very directly stated “I’m asking what is the actual harm…

I don’t think I’m actually misunderstanding you, because you just reiterated the point. You think that unless some arbitrary threshold of “harm” is exceeded, apparently as determined by you— in this case “the collapse of society,” or “the total elimination of all good TV”— there’s no point in writing about the current…

Yeah my whole point is: a lot of people *thought* (reasonably or otherwise, and certainly based to some extent in what Netflix *said* they intended) that Netflix *would* provide more diversity than they do, and would be *less* focus-grouped than they are, and the ultimate outcome doesn’t match expectations. That’s…