>> “I was just watching TV and just decided to bite him,” Charlie Davies-Carr said in the interview. “He put his finger in my mouth, so I just bit.” Harry Davies-Carr couldn’t remember the pain from that bite.
Is the Times really lending credibility to the idea that the then-infant remembers doing this?
Charlie's memory has probably been almost entirely replaced by the footage of him doing it. He's seen it at least dozens of times since it's played before any interviews he does.
I have memories from my childhood that are third-person because they were captured on videotape. I have a hint of the first-person perspective but my memory of watching the video is much clearer.
I just can’t understand the motivation behind spending all that money on something you can look at for free anytime you want to. What do you get out of that? Perhaps it’s some elaborate money laundering scheme.
I assume it’s similar to owning an original famous painting as opposed to reproduction or investors collecting NFTs hoping to resell at a higher price later.
Excepts bits are fungible, and the NFT bits on the blockchain aren’t even the “original bits”. An original painting isn’t fungible, and was actually painted by the artist. Only the pure speculation angle make sense. NFTs are the best example of greater fool theory in action.
NFTs are pretty dead at this point, so I suspect the buyer doesn't think they will ever get their money back.
Probably just bought it because it was funny or something else (it's abundantly clear to everyone in crypto that NFTs are a fad that has already passed).
some interesting things that could (although unlikely I guess) come from this sort if thing:
determining market value of blocks of content, eg - what's the take home ad money for a video like this for the uploader.. and what would the loss to youtube be if it's taken away.
Sure YT probably is not losing 700,000 of ads by losing this, or is it? Would they get involved in nft auctions to avoid losing content and would that be a better payday for creators?
Could the value be more to another platform? Rogan to spotify for example.. of course I think rogan on youtube adds to the value of rogan on spotify
- but I guess we have similar trades with TV seasons going from one home to another and the value changing.
This sort of thing would make it easier to hurt smaller portals like Vimeo perhaps.
Of course the markets could make it so that creators/uploaders could actually get more options for monetization rather than just taking what a non-transparent algorithm says you get as an ad split, and add an option for people who have been de-advertised / de-monetized or whatever.
I also think a dark side of this could be 'pay to deplatform' and such.
Interesting times these may be - I look forward to seeing more about nft purchases and rights conveyed.
Kind of weird and scary to see Internet history just go up for sale and possibly disappear. A new frontier of things you can buy: history (but the digital kind)!
Is the Times really lending credibility to the idea that the then-infant remembers doing this?