Blizzard could make their own second hand hearthstone marketplace if they wanted to. NFTs don't create that possibility. Blizzard judged that it's more profitable for them to be the sole sellers of cards at their price. While NFTs would enable secondary markets in hearthstone cards to exist outside of Blizzard's ecosystem Blizzard doesn't want you out of their ecosystem.
Furthermore even if they introduced something like that I highly doubt they'd use "some public blockchain" the risks from that would outweigh the benefits - they'd just make their own infrastructure internally.
I don't see a way in which NFTs solve a problem that can't already be solved more simply. After all valve secondary markets for games like TF2 have existed for more than a decade without needing NFTs.
You are kind of arguing my point. Blizzard won't do it because it loves exploiting their status against the player. But that's a point for nft-s, it would make it harder to exploit players. Yeah I agree it won't ever happen, but if it did, that would be a win.
Not “perfectly” well. There is the downside of cost. Without nfts they would have to invest in bespoke infrastructure for creating, storing, validating and trading the assets. With nfts, this entire infrastructure already exists.
I never said NFT-s were required or the only possible solution, I said that I don't think NFT-s in games are inherently bad or evil (which is a quite popular opinion)
Early studies for new therapies are often much more promising than the therapy actually turns out to be once deployed on a mass scale. I absolutely agree that psychedelics should be explored as a medication of choice but some promising early studies don't mean that antidepressants like SSRIs no longer have a place or that the early promise will prove out in the long term.
I think the argument thrown_22 is making is that Americans would be less worried if it was Vine instead of TikTok because Vine is made in America. Tiktok is a globally relevant social network not only not from America but from what is increasingly seen as America's rival.
The argument isn't inputting on the value/harm done by the social network but rather the perception of that value/harm which is influenced by the sense that TikTok is foreign in a way Vine was not.
Speaking from the UK I have to say that is insane. Like all animals, humans included, cats belong outdoors and to deprive them of their natural rhythms is cruel.
I agree that we need to think about how to nurture bird populations but keeping cats pent up indoors is wrong - and is reflected by how much worse they behave when that is done.
Sketchy link to a PDF by UC Davis. I was looking for a reference on the average lifespan of an outdoor cat, which I always here quoted around 2.5 years. It's a little write-up on why it's maybe not so nice to let your cat outside.
Maybe it's different in the UK, but I've seen a number of drivers speed up and swerve in neighborhood streets to run cats over. It's fucked up, but it's a thing. I remember having classmates in high school that would brag about it.
Add every other danger, jumping into a backyard with the wrong dog, parasites, coyotes, and it's not exactly an idyllic stroll even for indoor/outdoor cats.
I'm sure dogs aren't allowed to wander the neighborhood in the UK. I would have no problem if they confined their cat to the yard or let her out while supervising.
Our two cats are quite fulfilled and pleased with their situation despite only going outside on leash.
> average lifespan of an outdoor cat, which I always here quoted around 2.5 years.
All bar one of the cats that I and my family have had were outdoor cats who lived much longer than that. The exception was run over crossing a dual carriageway to her favourite hunting ground. The latest one of mine lived to nearly seventeen and went out in the woods pretty much everyday. He slept at home in the house though.
Letting pet cats outdoors is a clearly anti-social behavior. Cats that are a natural part of the ecosystem are one thing -they belong there. But introducing predators into an ecosystem without thinking through the wide implications is the thing that is insane.
Prioritizing the feelings of "my cat" over "all the creatures that will be killed, all the neighbors who will have to clean up after my cat, and all the gardens and bird feeders that will suffer damage" is a mindset that is so selfish and myopic.
If you cannot give your cat a quality of life indoors that would not be cruel, you should not own a cat.
Also, imagine saying this about literally any other animals humans keep. "I just let my dog roam the neighborhood." Or "I just let my horse, chicken, goat, iguana, cockatoo, snake, ferret, etc roam the neighborhood."
What? It's absurd on its face. The only reason cats get this treatment is because we've traditionally allowed it.
Have you ever kept a log of the food you eat in a day? Admittedly I come at this from a very different perspective being obese, and having been much more obese in the past, but actively logging my food and retrospectively calculating calories gave me a much better sense of how much I was actually eating.
When you've recorded some data on that it would be productive to calculate your basal metabolic rate, which are the calories your body uses on the daily (so any exercise adds on to that). Comparing those two figures might be productive.
Of course there may be genetic factors going on but perception is so powerful it's the first thing I'd question
What's toxic to democracy is politicians lying, and then telling us that p;ointing out their moments of hypocrisy is what's doing the real damage. Describing reality is never bad.
There's a world of difference between "This politician is lying to you." and "All politicians are lying to you." One is a statement against a single incident which can be refuted or supported by additional facts. The other is an unprovable blanket statement which begs the question of whether the government can be trusted.
The question "can government be trusted" is long answered with a resounding NO it can not
Government like fire is a useful servant, but a fearful master.
This is why we have separation of powers, checks and balances, and a federalist system in the US, because we understand government can never, and should never be trusted.
Government is control, government is fear, government is power. Power Corrupts, and the only way to prevent that corruption is to deny power, to check power, to distribute power.
Ironically I view giving democratic governments more power as abandoning the weak to the whims of the majority, which we have seen time and time again in history even recent history
Democracy after all is 2 wolves and lamb voting on what is for dinner, a constitutional republic backed by distributed governance is the lamb having rights to tell the majority to f' off
Politicians have been lying since the origin of politics. The modern press’ penchant for shouting liar every time a politician they don’t like speaks is juvenile and patronizing to the audience.
Why not both? The media is full of liars, yes - two words "Daily Mail" or "Fox News" if you are American.
Politics is also full of liars. Boris Johnson being a prime example.
I don't know what the solution is but I suspect it lies in removing egoism from the system. Something more like Switzerland's governing council rather than an individual leader that just attracts narcissistic individuals.
Even with that lens, Covid is not universally successsful. It's very much opportunistic. For example, leave the nursing homes - even after being well aware of the data from Italy - and plenty of innoscent ppl die. Blaming Covid for incompotence of leadership is silly. Or, we had a pandemic ~10 yrs ago, yet zero discussion of "Where's the mask stockpile?" and "Where's the PPE stockpile?"
Then, of course, there's how well Covid does against (often) preventable conditions.
We're on the same page. Context matters. Now let's human-up and table the details about Covid. Let's stop hiding behind fearmongering aggregated data, and abuse of the use of percentages and other intentionally manipulative tactics. Finally, let's not forget to ask why? Why the thumb on the scale approach?
Don't see how ships to trade is a red herring. First Google result for "Black Death rats ships":
> The Black Death was also carried by rats on merchant ships through the trade routes of Europe. It struck Europe in 1347, when 12 ships docked at the Sicilian port of Messina. Subsequently called “death ships”, those on board were either dead or sick
Parent is using an example of a case where we know trade by ships helped cause the plague to spread, so is similar to how obese people have worse covid outcomes. No one is really going to go on a platform and attack trade by ships, though, just like in modern times no one is allowed to discriminate against the obese.
The point is, the infection rates, etc. are not comparable. Taken in aggragate and on a long enough time line just about anything can look dangerous. Sans, evidently, preventable diseases. Then we sweep those aside, even before Covid.
Again, all that's being suggested is more transparency and honesty, and less hyperbole and statistical fueled manipulation. That is all.
Please don't be snarky. It's rude and it also makes it more difficult for others to follow your train of thought. I'm not part of the original thread and I don't understand what argument you're making here.
Okay. So what's the actual argument? All I can pull out of it is insults and sarcasm toward the GGGP, along with an assumption about what GGGP would do in a different scenario.
What is GGP's actual argument for why GGGP is wrong?
Since GP refers to ubiquitous systemic issues, not xenophobia, not technological ventures, "ships to trade" seems to be a red herring. Also worth noting: "congratulations" reads more than a bit disingenuously.
An interesting interview, it's nice to see a little more substance behind the decision.I also appreciate that the interviewer did ask some of the sterner questions e.g. Facebook throwing money away from it's business
Maybe it's just the years of science fiction talking but I can't help but see this in a dystopian light. I don't want my social world to be created by"Meta". I want to use social media, and the internet more generally, as tools which enrich my life but don't dominate it. Directly opposite to how Zuckerberg pitches "Meta" in this interview.
My experience of the pandemic has taught me the primacy of physical, human, interaction. A VR headset isn't going to bridge that digital void. What's more, the internet is already addictive enough, already threatening those interactions I value. I recently read the short story "The machine stops" by E.M. Forster (available at http://www.visbox.com/prajlich/forster.html ), and I can't help but feel Facebook is building towards the dystopia it presents.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with the vast scope of these ambitions. I'm lucky enough to be informed and privileged enough I can choose to ditch these companies but I worry for the many who can't.
Not to worry. Like every other attempt to replace the Internet with a privately owned space for communication, self-expression, and above all content consumption, this one will fail. If it weren't for the inattention to history of today's attention monopolists, we'd really be in trouble.
> every other attempt to replace the Internet with a privately owned space for communication, self-expression, and above all content consumption, this one will fail.
I wish you were right, but looking at Internet traffic on mobile devices [1]:
* 24% is YouTube.
* 10% is Facebook.
* 8% is TikTok.
* 8% is Instragram.
* 7% is Facebook video.
* 6% is Instagram.
* 5% is Google.
* 2% is Netflix.
That leaves about 30% for all other Internet traffic, including other large walled gardens like Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp, etc. So something like three quarters of all Internet traffic is in walled gardens now. Privately owned communication spaces are some of the biggest businesses in the world today.
Note that this is mobile data, because it was the first dataset I was able to find easily.
> something like three quarters of all Internet traffic is in walled gardens now. Privately owned communication spaces are some of the biggest businesses in the world today.
100% of traffic goes to a space owned by someone. The fact that big companies can dominate profits, and still companies like TikTok can rise from no where is crazy.
Just because the internet is not decentralized IRC channels hosted in university dark corner offices doesn't mean that its a true walled garden in the typical sense.
I slack my coworkers, and imessaage my family, and facetime my partner, and discord my gamer friends, and use tiktok for entertainment, and use whatapp for my international friends.
Last week, i used teams for my coworkers and zoom for my family, and signal for my friends and ... and ... and ...
Apps come and go. TikTok is replacing youtube and Disney+ is replacing netflix and signal is (hopefully!) replacing something... While i wish that we actually owned our own servers, knowing that i can quickly change accounts and apps and "gardens" makes it better.
> knowing that i can quickly change accounts and apps and "gardens" makes it better
That's what the app store diversity push / legislation is about to me.
We're in a dangerous place where Apple is hardware locked to a single distribution channel (and its rules) & Android is heavy pushed towards a single distribution channel (and its rules).
It only takes a single round of bad legislation to get from there to "Your phone only runs what we say it can run."
Ironically, China has more diversity in app stores than everywhere else.
> Ironically, China has more diversity in app stores than everywhere else.
Are they all the same 3 apps the government approves of?
> That's what the app store diversity push / legislation is about to me.
I completely agree and hope apple gets pushed around until it opens up the hardware. I don't care (from a practical, non philosophical level) about APIs or federation or interoperable clients as long as i can just try something new. I have yet to find a single person who can talk with me over Matrix but a dozen who prefer signal.
I don't doubt your overall conclusion that the majority of mindshare is with a couple big apps/sites, but mobile data seems like a very poor metric for this, and it's no surprise that big video and image sites dominate the list. Time spent per app/site seems like a much better metric. I spend a ton of time on HN but I'm sure my overall data transmission would barely equal a couple second video clip.
If I spend 10 minutes watching a 5GB video but 5 hours reading an ebook, what do I look like in your stats ? Probably more like a youtube couch potato than a philosopher, which would be misrepresentative.
A depressing statistic. But it's by downstream traffic. So it's heavily skewed to video. Also, Google may include Google cloud (video conferencing/video search/image search/mail/pics/video/whatever).
And TikTok at 8% is only 5 years old. The point isn't "everyone uses different stuff" the point is "creating new things outside of the existing framework is possible" and I still think that is very much true.
Notice how most of these are primarily video and image platforms. Anything which is primarily text, as most of the internet is, would never show up on this scale.
They are going to need foveal rendering to achieve the latency/resolution needed. That means they are going to expensive displays and eye tracking, which you might think would add to the price... but eye tracking on that scale is more valuable than any form of advertising information has ever been. It is the gold standard of attention measurement.
You can't even control the location, sequence, or time spent looking at different image content. They will know exactly what you are interested in, how much, and when that changes. They will know what distracts you most, and optimize it (for their customers the advertisers).
In the end I expect these to be given to high value (elite college students) consumers for free so that they can be monetized. Prepare to explain to your future wife why you always have goats in silk stockings on your feed!
Oh, also... compelling Metaverse content?! It will be user created. TikTok to the rescue!
Thinking about your comments on eye tracking combined with the weirdo retina scanning cryptocurrency thing Sam Altman is working on is some fun dystopian nightmare fuel.
I’d like to see a UI that abstracts Wireguard behind contact management UX
If I’m connecting to someone via that app it’s over a Wireguard tunnel. On desktop, let me drag files over, append to a synced message thread (stored in SQLite or something simple)
Open source design focused on beating desktop operating systems when it’s strength was always networking.
All the attention is on building tech for corporations to satisfy political memes. It doesn’t have to be if software people built different software
It's also not necessarily competing with meatspace. It's competing with other technologies that connect remote people together where there is no meatspace option. And it's all going to serve the purpose of selling influence over the users.
As stated in the BBC article it's not banning those sexual acts, it's banning depictions (e.g. porn of them). And it's banning these ones in particular because they are considered by the UK Gov to be life threatening.
So it's not about freedom of expression because it's about selling porn. And the gov has a justification as to why these 2 acts because it believes they're dangerous (note they also banned strangulation but that didn't get talked about because few people disagree that strangling someone for pleasure is dangerous).
Penetration by any object "associated with violence"
Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)
Urolagnia (known as "water sports")
Role-playing as non-adults
Physical restraint
Humiliation
Female ejaculation
Strangulation
Facesitting
Fisting"
There's no way I can see Spanking, verbal abuse, Female ejaculation, Facesitting or Fisting can be considered "dangerous". Even things like Physical restraint are safely done.
I like "Climate Catastrophe" more than "Climate Crisis" which is the term in vogue in left wing circles here in Britain. But I think I still prefer Climate Change because to me the other terms fail to relate that what's happened is we've hijacked earth's systems and it's changing in response.
For me, crisis and catastrophe are too immediate and too direct. What's insidious about the climate is how diffuse and difficult to comprehend it is. Additionally, while I do expect a lot of peoples lives to get more difficult in the coming decades (at least re: weather) it is by no means the end of the world, excepting of course island communities and countries for whom it literally is. That I am happy to call a crisis.
Furthermore even if they introduced something like that I highly doubt they'd use "some public blockchain" the risks from that would outweigh the benefits - they'd just make their own infrastructure internally.
I don't see a way in which NFTs solve a problem that can't already be solved more simply. After all valve secondary markets for games like TF2 have existed for more than a decade without needing NFTs.