> "Real artists ship." —SPJ
I once heard a coach claim that given a student with the heart of a champion, they'd podium after having been taught but two actions.
(note the importance of two actions: pure strategies don't dominate)
I sometimes wish we had our winning athletes stand on herms, not a podium. At least the herms are decorated (usually, now chiselled off)
I do realize english is a fluid language and adapts to suit it's needs. I do not believe in appeals to dictionary authorities, I just don't LIKE "to podium" as a verb
(j/k)
Personally I'd probably interpret "to medal" as "to meddle" and misunderstand completely.
(I remember someone —Lambert Meertens?— trying very hard to come up with non-applicable "pure" mathematics word problem involving how to best arrange an ameboid tournament, but of course it was all just a thin disguise —mathematical Groucho Marx glasses!— on top of a very lucrative applied problem: optimal reduction of an operator tree into an accumulator)
Tactics; ways to attack.
(probably an unspoken assumption is that the two actions taught would both start in the same way, so one launches the attack, sees which* line gets closed, and continues in the line which has been opened. Even if you don't have the speed to properly determine the open line for the continuation, it's still possible to successfully run the pair as a mixed strategy and expect to find an opening stochastically)
* the same coach believes the most beautiful action is "feint direct, direct": at first you pretend to straightforwardly touch, but should your opponent fail to defend (because they're expecting a more complex action and are waiting to see where you're really going to attack), you go ahead and turn the "feint" into a real score.
Many of the most prolific artists of all time are now forgotten by the masses. The choice of "artist" is particularly perplexing here because the implied sentiment seems to apply primarily to industry and not to artists.
Tolkien being an example.
Measuring the "influence" of an artist my "number of artworks created and sold" is a bit like measuring academics by "number of papers published". It's at best a very coarse approximation of "the real thing". At worst, total bull.
That anything came down from him was the executors of his will ignoring his stated intent.
And yet he's considered a literary Great of the 20st century.
Sometimes, legacy is that what others did.
Out of curiosity, for which sport?