Yeah I was tempted to add a caveat, it does technically auto executive, but because it needs to interact with the real world it will always run into the oracle problem. The only solution to the oracle problem is courts and tort law, which makes the blockchain contract redundant and unnecessarily expensive.
VC investing is effectively predatory pricing, squeezing out original non-tech service providers by providing services below cost, then replacing them with monopoly tech versions. The funding is intimately tied to the industry and they all use the same strategy.
This was actually the original idea of non-fungible tokens, but because you need special legislation to tie an object to this digital receipt (there is nothing legally tying one thing to the other), they just skipped over it completely and said the NFT itself was the commodity, which is why they could only do it for digital art with the a web link. (we could, for example, see this more useful for a title to a car or house)
In fact, many NFTs don’t even contain any language about copyright or licensing, they don’t even attempt to pretend that the NFT holder owns the copyright. The owner of the NFT in these cases only owns the NFT, and not the copyright. Of course, you have to transfer the copyright separately from transferring the NFT, which makes this whole thing redundant for buying/selling on secondary markets, but they could have at least tried to pretend they could.
Apparently, smart contracts are not contracts at all… they are friendly suggestions. Unsurprisingly a contract needs a mechanism to enforce it, which makes decentralized contracts redundant at best (as you still need institutions outside of the blockchain to monitor and enforce the contracts), and or worse, completely useless if there is no legal way to enforce them.
It was the Bush administration that used their cultural differences as a justification for their hatred of the west. Of course, Bush could have just mentioned what Al Qaeda actually said, which was that they were a reaction to the US military, money, and support meddling in the Middle East. But then that might draw negative attention from legitimate concerns the Middle East has, which means the terrorists win according to their tortured logic, so instead “they hate us for our freedom”.
No, ex as in former sexual partners, because you aren’t doing them any more.
Yeah it is exactly what people engaging in fraud rely on. The more money that is on the line, the less likely the heuristic works. Reddit had an obsession with popular heuristics. The whole point of one is to quickly make an assessment when you don’t have either the time or resources. It is not a proof, never has been. The other one people always bring up is Occam’s razor. All razors are heuristics, heuristics are never proof.
Although in this case the claim is that Elon is intentionally tanking twitter, which is also a ridiculous claim.
When the vegetable meat costs more than the animal meat, I can feel the “I’m being ripped off”. Make fake meat cheaper than real meat and I’ll eat it all day long.
*deleted by creator * - I was responding to a different thread but had this window open and replied here by mistake. That’s interesting though, thanks for following up.
I think that an open systems that are universal and interoperable are inherently superior to any walled garden. If people think that the fediverse can’t handle or incorporate large corporate interests then this is a failed experiment and they should just shut it down now. Superior open systems should be able to dominate a free market environments, and people either don’t believe this to be the case, or the fediverse is inferior and will never beat the centralized competitors.
I also hate Facebook but for those reasons I think that Facebook joining the fediverse would actually improve Facebook, not worsen the fediverse.
Reminds me of the Bitcoin/BlackRock debate. They are trying to start an ETF, and all I can think is “Good, the more BTC is integrated into the system, the more it will change it, this is the ultimate goal”.
It’s not to say it’s without it’s risks, but if the system is not adaptive enough to work through any potential problems, it will never survive in the long run. Antifragility is a necessity of such a system.
Yeah people keep talking about open source and interoperability as this fragile thing that can be consumed by any sufficiently large player. It’s supposed to be less fragile, it’s supposed to be superior. If there is a bad reaction to adding such a large player, then learn from it and iterate solutions. Making tiny walled gardens has got to be the most boring experiment that I don’t care to be a part of.
Would be nice if instances had a default recommended block list, like how spam filters work. Nasty stuff is “blocked” but still accessible and I can move it out of spam if I so chose. Rather than defederating all the time
I just wanted to say, I am by no means technical but your position is exactly what I was thinking, if an open source project can’t survive when it’s competitors start using it, then it’s never going to survive. The whole point is for it to be interoperable, resilient, and antifragile, and there are plenty of open source projects that achieved that. Competitors switching over to open source is a natural progression of any open source project if one assumes it is successful.
Obviously this reduces waste which is nice but I was curious, does the program actually save money or does the cost to recycle cost more than what is recovered?
So by paying for university he is funding any protests done by students? A bit of a stretch, no?