Wait what problem are we solving again?
If we need dozens of specific purpose ledgers between banks, what's wrong with database tables running on ancient mainframes, and how would dozens of different blockchains solve that specific problem?
1,717 karma · joined July 14, 2013
If we need dozens of specific purpose ledgers between banks, what's wrong with database tables running on ancient mainframes, and how would dozens of different blockchains solve that specific problem?
* HTMX (formerly "Intercooler") for interactive (Ajax) functionality: https://htmx.org/
I agree. I don't agree that blockchain, or NFTs, can ever deliver on their promises to contribute to that matter, because of their nature. How do you think would the blockchain, or NFTs, help to identify and authenticate original works?
> I believe there's a ton of hype and bad actors (as usual in a new market)
Can you name an example of another market where this was the case - i.e. bad actors were the majority of actors, and then something (what?) happened that made the market unviable for scams?
> the idea of purchasing the Nyan cat original
What does the "original" .gif of the Nyan Cat do for you that my copy of it doesn't?
> same as a material painting
I see 2 purposes of the "original" in a material world: 1. speculation, 2. paying the original artist. Since 2. isn't possible for e.g. the Mona Lisa, what remains is that it's a pure speculation object. You could argue that experts could distinguish the orginal Mona Lisa from any copy, but that wouldn't work in the digital world, where my copy of the Nyan Cap .gif would gif just as your original would.
What is the problem statement here, and how would NFTs, or blockchain, contribute to a solution here?
What would stop an actor with enough resources (Russia, China, USA) to put deepfakes onto the chain?
What would stop them from blackmailing service providers who act as gatekeepers / market platforms to put deepfakes into the chain?
Why would they even accept any single "Blockchain X" as the source of truth? Why wouldn't they just say "Oh that's the evil state Y, of course they're pretending that their fakes on their state-governed propaganda blockchain are authentical, whereas OUR blockchain tells the TRUTH!"
How would you correct honest mistakes on the chain? By a correction update? Then what would stop an evil actor (Taliban) who overturns the government, or takes over a giant corporation, from "correcting" an unpleasant truth, and rewriting history?
Once again, a social problem is attempted to be solved with technology. This never works.
> I think NFTs will settle down eventually and they'll be useful
What would be different, given some time, from now? What needs to change for NFTs to become useful?
2) You typically want your user name to be recognizable by the community you're registering at.
It's the stories and the emotions that are evoked when reading, that trigger profound changes in my mind.
I have no time to waste reading any of the millions of random trivial "do this, do that" lists. They have no relation to me. Why should I follow them?
Propaganda actually works, that's why dictatorships keep using that playbook.
The point is that it's pointless to try to quantify how many fell victim to propaganda. There is no meaningful way to assess it, since all metrics you'll try to use are under control of a totalitarian state that controls every single statistic.
There is no "mainstream media" left in Russia after they closed Echo Moscow and TVRain (Doschd).
All "polls and statistics" you see are basically fabricated by the government, either directly, or by induced fear.
That's ridiculous. If you provide a whitelabel solution, you simply add consent checkboxes and and explanatory text, the same way shop systems and virtually all other whitelabel software meant to be embedded works.
> how culpable OP is for abuse of his tool's abilities
Regulators don't care where you sourced the software from that you provided. You provide it, you host it, you're culpable.
A user knows what a draft is, and would agree to such a feature upon pressing a button that indicates that the draft will be saved for later by submitting the form verbatim as-is to the server
Saving everything a user types in, without a user's informed consent, is a severe trust violation.
Very strange way of thinking.
For those who don't know, the other two are: Cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors.
Your candidates show that after learning how to solve a problem, they can demonstrate they're able to solve it.
Have you considered just hiring candidates and then training them, or expect them to learn approaches that are new to them?
Right now, you're pretending that your company needs random puzzles solved, and they're pretending that they're able to solve random puzzles without looking them up in an algorithms book.
What's the point of this whole theatre?
I get that your ego is enjoying that, but is that providing your company really any value?
From the article:
> Accept that sometimes, or for some people, your JavaScript will not work. Put some thought into what that means. Err on the side of basing your work on existing HTML mechanisms whenever you can
As you have observed, disabling JavaScript does not make the site stop working entirely for no reason. It degrades meaningfully, and the author put thought into what that means
Moreover, enabling JS does not break browser functionality you're used to.
That's the entire point.
> Vitalik Buterin [...] seem to disagree
Vitalik is quoted twice in this blog post to drive the entire point home, you can quickly Ctrl+F for his name.
> humans figuring out how to do something they want to do
Humans don't want tulips that much (or monkey GIFs, or Amway toothpaste, or whatever the scheme du jour is). They want to get rich quick, and to show off their status to their peer group.
If collecting tulips however is destroying the planet, you and I have a responsibility to make this scheme unfeasible.
[0] https://yanmaani.github.io/proof-of-stake-is-a-scam-and-the-...
For PoW to work, they necessarily must be inefficient, there is no future possible where they become more efficient. Inefficiency is a necessity for them to exist.