AI slop article. Feel free to ignore.

>The reality is, to participate in any hobby you will have to expend significant amounts of dough,

No shortage of very cheap or free hobbies. Walking is free. Cooking is what you'd spend anyway for food (or cheaper if it helps you skip delivery), watching movies cheap (not to mention piratable), coding is cheap, playing 8-bit games is cheap, a book club is cheap, sewing is cheap, drawing is cheap, writing is cheap...

In almost all cases you are still purchasing, consuming, and being targeted in some shape or form.

Literally every hobby has an incentive to target those practitioners who heavily spend and spend time with other similar minded practitioners.

> Cooking

And you see the rise of influencer and performance driven marketing by firms like Henckels and Le Crueset (nothing wrong with that) along with those who truly love cooking specific types of cuisine overindexing on unique or subsets of ingredients (Geographic Indicator or bust)

> watching movies cheap (not to mention piratable)

And you see plenty of movie enthusiasts optimizing for 4K displays, high fidelity sound, or falling deep into IP-driven subcultures like Disney-fanatics

> coding is cheap

And you see whales who spend inordinate amounts on money on mechanical keyboards, 4K monitors, personal rigs, etc

> playing 8-bit games is cheap

Retro gamers.

> book club is cheap

Book subscriptions and local bookstore-led book clubs

---

Show me the hobby, and I will show you the whales that all businesses in that specific hobby will target.

>In almost all cases you are still purchasing, consuming, and being targeted in some shape or form.

"In some shape of form" is a quite moved goalpost from "to participate in any hobby you will have to expend significant amounts of dough".

>Show me the hobby, and I will show you the whales that all businesses in that specific hobby will target.

You can spend a fortune even on socks, if you're so inclined. Or pay $1000 for a Juicero. Doesn't mean you have to, which was the claim.

Yes, I've noticed the person you're replying to is frequently moving goalposts in this thread. They seem uncomfortable with the idea that you don't need to consume consume consume to enjoy an activity or hobby.

They are trying to suggest, I think, that no hobby is pure from rampant consumerism. Which is probably correct. I don't see what that has to do with those of us who don't feel the need to buy $100 socks or $1000 juice machines or what have you.

> Show me the hobby, and I will show you the whales that all businesses in that specific hobby will target.

Sure, they can exist. Does that mean you are obligated to purchase?

> And you see plenty of movie enthusiasts optimizing for 4K displays, high fidelity sound, or falling deep into IP-driven subcultures like Disney-fanatics

It almost sounds like the most exciting part of a hobby for you is buying things.

Most people don't base their personality on their hobbies

And most adults who like Disney aren't "Disney adults". There are extremists in every hobby and fandom.

(x) to doubt

and even calling the things they consume "experiences" is overselling them

Most people no. Then again most people are idiots barely aware of the world they live in, much less culture.

People who actually care about art, if given a chance to see it, yes.

Of course, it being done by Davinci is not some random fact about the painting - as if a painting is a mere artifact.

>Art is about pushing limits of what's possible

That's engineering, if that.

Art isn't, and has never been about that.

Sure it has. See the modernism as a whole.

Modernism wasn't about "pushing limits of what's possible" either. It was first and foremost a period style itself. That style included experimentation and "pushing some limits" but art in general wasn't that, then, before or after (which is also why those limits went right back, and literature for example returned to far more classical forms after modernism's era passed - it didn't kept pushing at limits).

And they might have to gasp! get an honest job!

I don't know much about that side of things, but I presume that's hard work! Maybe not always so honest though.

That's a pretty wide brush you are painting with there

That OF is not a honest job?

That's the narrowest of brushes. Anybody thinking otherwise is the one painting with an overly broad mind, and not in a good way.

Shame they had to "coerce" such angels, who'd never do evil for profit otherwise...

Regardless of any specifics, I don't see any contradiction.

If a company is deemed a "supply chain risk" it makes perfect sense to compel it to work with the military, assuming the latter will compel them to fix the issues that make them such a risk.

I’m not sure what definition of supply chain risk they’re working off of. For NATO to consider an organization to be a supply chain risk, it implies that usual controls (security clearances and the like) wouldn’t be sufficient to guarantee the integrity and security of the supply chain. If that’s the operating definition, I see the contradiction- it’s arguing that a company cannot be trusted to voluntarily work within supply chains but can be trusted enough to be compelled.

If they’re operating under a different definition of supply chain risk, I don’t have a clue.

The "supply chain risk" option is to remove that company from the supply chain all together. The 'risk' is because the company is compromised by a foreign entity.

It is not about disciplining them to get better.

1. So one option is about forcing them to produce something. You must build this for us.

2 The other option is saying they are compromised so stop using them all together. We will not use what you build for us at all because we don't trust it.

So . Contradictory.

>This was under duress that government was going to use emergency act to force them anyway.

Or, more likely, adding the "core safety promise" was just them playing hard to the government to get a better deal, and the government showed them they can play the same game.