I think it is because people who think or say "what about me?" hear "what about me?" from others as if it's support of their own view, when really their core issues could be totally different. "Yeah, what about us?"
As opposed to "we need to help everyone, especially highly victimized groups". And then people infight over which groups require more attention vs everyone else.
I went through something similar once when I was interviewing for an IT position in the Antarctic (I'd applied for positions at both McMurdo and Amundsen-Scott), and I was supposed to connect to their network simulator to troubleshoot and solve some network issue, but it wasn't working on their end so the interviewer walked me through the scenario, and responded as a DM would. - Quite frustratingly this was my 3rd interview for the position, and although I diagnosed and solved the DM'd scenario of a downed vlan issue in a Cisco environment in ~5 minutes of this off-the-cuff "simulation" using DM provided prompts, help menus, and outputs, I did not get the job. I think he penalized me for relying on the DM provided help menus and auto suggest tabbing...which is something anyone on a working simulator would have done. Which was a bummer because even though I was overqualified for the positions and would take a pay cut, I really wanted the experience of living for months in the Antarctic. So while I see the usefulness of this kind of interview, there are noteworthy issues of bias which a real simulator wouldn't begrudge you.
This short story "Divided by Infinity" is a great exploration of similar ideas/ particularly the Quantum Immortality thought experiment. Definitely worth a read.
https://www.tor.com/2010/08/05/divided-by-infinity/
I don't think there is no real world application for Web3 or NFTs, that seems pretty short sighted. Sure, there are scams, but legit innovations as well. I mean, the MoMA liquidated 70 million USD in art, including a Picasso, to buy NFTs.
Sure, but it has a different address...there is no possibility of confusion. Something from the 1950s is not going to be confused with something from the 1980s, especially with a blockchain timestamp.
Smart contracts can and do limit the amount which can be minted. And fraud exists everywhere, regardless of institutional controls - this is where community matters.
I suppose I see is like noticing that a house is being built, and then criticizing it because no one can live in it, and the builder's tools are loud, and pieces of building material are strewn around. If you don't like houses at all, then it's certainly fair to be critical of them at any state of their development, but if you admit they are useful to exist, albeit in a more developed state than not, it seems like a conflict. - I do appreciate your discussion here, and I hope I'm not coming across as antagonistic by saying your position is disingenuous, I just see it as a process of growth, some of which is not so tenable...like a screaming child vs an adult who creates something that contributes something that is a boon for society in their life. I also admit it remains to be seen, but there is meaningful evidence which supports a net positive outcome.
Alright, it is a fair point that it isn't a closed system, but you have to start from somewhere in order to grow from there into something with more of a closed loop. At the end of the day, courts of law have to decide on the outcomes of contentions, and this holds true with traditional crypto as well. - Perhaps one day we'll see smart contracts which are honored by courts to uphold the contracts in a lawful way, if written in a specific way (like what Agrello is/was trying to do...dunno if they are still around), but it has to be built first, it can't be perfect day one out the door, it's a journey.
It remains to be seen, the future is uncertain. There is also a lot more emotional attachment in the space...people do really like the art. Maybe not when it comes to cryptonarwals or whatever, but pieces that are genuine creative endeavors...deafbeef, art blocks, cryptopunks - there is a real love of these in the space, and it does help bind communities together. There will always be scammers and grifters in every walk of life, and it's a personal responsibility to apply critical thinking. But it doesn't discount the value of what is bring brought into focus with the innovation.
I agree PoW is bad, and I'm hopeful for the future of Proof of Stake. Just like using coal and oil to fuel our industries is bad, and we are moving more and more towards renewable energy it is a path of progression. You have to start somewhere and grow, but I think it is somewhat disingenuous to discuss them as if they are static states which are not seeking and progressing to more ethical models.
Perhaps you can email Universal Talent Agency and tell them they are wrong. Trademarks and copyright infringement exists in the NFT world, just because you can mint an NFT doesn't mean you own the art associated, particularly if you didn't create it.
"my other complaint is that you’re just creating a speculative instrument that doesn’t really do anything except hope someone else will pay more for it."
So like bitcoin? - The value is in what someone believes it is worth to be provably in control of a given asset. It also provides a great deal of social currency...certain NFT owners have identity wrapped up in them such that owning it extends social latitudes, as the reputational harm which could be done for being a ingeniousness actor far outweighs making a quick buck.
I agree there are issues, but the same was (and still is) true in crypto - shitcoins and shitNFTs. That doesn't mean there aren't valuable use cases, or real artistic value and utility in some NFTs, and it doesn't mean there aren't real visionaries building things with authenticity and heart behind them.
This isn't true, it depends entirely on the project and the rights assigned. Meebits and Bored Apes give commercial rights up to 100k USD/yr (a formal agreement is required if exceeded), and Cryptoadz grant fully open CC0 rights to the owners to use in any purpose. - Also, when in the past few decades have you ever bought a piece of art from a creator and assumed that would give you commercial rights to their creation?
I agree, they are profoundly historically significant, they are the prototype for the ERC-721 token standard, and are event cited in the whitepaper proposal.
This isn't true - sure there are projects that use IPFS to host token assets too big to store on-chain (3d assets, photos, etc.), but those assets can be assured to be perfectly correlated with their hashes. Not to mention many projects are fully on-chain, like CryptoPunks and AutoGlyphs.
As someone who was early in both crypto and NFTs, I really don't get the hate from the crypto community especially. They are a powerful tool for artists and creators to manage their works, especially digital artists who could never control their art before. They can and do manage commercial and IP rights, artist royalties, help self-organize DAOs and other efforts, and assure the authenticity and provenance with a categorical shift in confidence which could never be done before. They will and are changing and improving our digital world such that it will never be the same, just as crypto has.
>Researchers say these nearly-invisible microplastics are becoming a major threat to human health. They’re typically less than 0.2 inches across, but can be as small as one-fiftieth the width of a human hair.
Less than 0.2 inches across huh...technically true I suppose.
There is also something to be said about the subtle lighting when actually shooting such shots. Doing it with CG is perhaps approachable, but there is a point of diminishing returns when more and more time is spent to close that last few percent of the "realism" gap.
Case in point, I took this long exposure photo in about 15 seconds, provided a bit of setup and specialized hardware. A CG version would have taken (I think) hours and still not quite have the same subtleties in lighting.
https://imgur.com/e4UWiqz
The thing to be wary of here is knowing which platform should be used, on a given site. These devices are to establish strict lines of trust, but not all those who use them are technically proficient, so a MitM that downgrades the authenticator from "platform" to "cross-platform" (or roaming) can alter the registration process such that what should have had a biometric tie now just has a PIN (or no PIN depending). This attack depends on how the vendor is managing AAGUIDs and Attestment Certificates, but a lot simply don't.
Actually just started some work on some biometric FIDO2 webapp testing, and there are frustratingly few device options available to use for testing, particularly in linux. It works fine on most modern mobile devices, but I need to get into the guts of things, so I need an actual FIDO2 biometric device so it has been a little frustrating. - I don't suppose anyone knows of any device emulators/simulators our there, to test a webapp?