Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because the book remains on-chain, the book does not die, but crosses the boundary of physical to digital. It reminds me of the video game SOMA, where people upload a brain-scan of themselves to live on after some catastrophe, essentially making a digital copy of their consciousness. But because they are also still physically alive, they see the digital version of themselves as a clone, someone else. To "complete t…
It goes back at least 50 years more, to Star Trek transporters. And the most chilling version I've seen is in Charles Stross' Glasshouse , where some soldiers fight a virus that infects the consciousness of everyone using such a transporter. They "rescue" an infected population by chopping off their heads and throwing them into a transporter hacked to remove the virus. IIRC only the heads because transporting the ent…
€2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
291–300 of 398 posts
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
What blockchain? Some newer ones are not expensive (but also are not decentralized enough yet). They dismiss ipfs straight away in the responses already for it and actually say they will put the actual imagine on the blockchain. This will cost something (possibly a lot) depending on which chain, but they have $4m+ left to burn on ‘the good cause’. This all stinks but I must agree, if you want something for eternity (…
Current eth prices are about 233M$/GB to get something on the chain. They could get about 17MB with all of their remaining funds.
Jikes, that's even worse than I thought. So then they will probably just go for another coin and store it there. Not sure how else. Or maybe they'll raise a few billion after this victory /s
Unfortunately, things like that actually happen even though everyone here would consider it a joke.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
A handful of words can be copyrightable. The idea of copyrighted content being stored on a blockchain that thousands of nodes duplicate and offer freely is an interesting conundrum that your reply entirely sidesteps. I’m guessing it has happened already but I too am interested in the legal implications of this.
Legally it's not complicated: is it a copy? Is it permitted by the copyright owner? No? Then it's an infringing copy. Actually doing something about it is a problem, as shown throughout the post-Napster era, but every node that serves an infringing copy is potentially liable.
A lot of nodes are run by some (relatively) well-known, well-funded companies. See https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/nodes-and-clients/no...
Wonder if they will be or have been subject to copyright complaints / lawsuits.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's access to broadcast media. When access to broadcast media was heavily gatekept, the official reality bubbles were few and strengthened everywhere. Now everyone has it, there can be far more bubbles. I also hope that we're in a transitional time as people get used to the new technology. I'm sure that it took people a while to understand how much they should believe newspapers or not when they first came a…
> Now everyone has it, there can be far more bubbles. Yeah, I feel like this is the issue. I've heard the theory that in the past, every village had a village idiot. The internet has enabled all these village idiots to find each other and to broadcast their idiocies. They feel strengthened in finding like-minded people and feel vindicated in their beliefs. Due to the size of the group and how vocal they are, they're…
The "peer to peer idiot networking and amplification" effect you mention is real but it's dangerous, or at least wildly inaccurate, to explain the rise of our "disinformation society" by dismissing the culprits as "idiots." Many of them are, but...
Look at the politicians and others pushing blatant disinformation and profiting from it. They are doing this with a great degree of skillful malice. Nobody listens to actual idiots; they want to emulate and follow the successful/powerful people who are savvy enough to hone their message and their image.
Look at the people swallowing these lies. Many of them are generally intelligent and/or successful people. Many Trump supporters are quite successful and affluent. However, their faith in actual academics, experts, and traditional institutions has been shattered, leaving uniquely susceptible to malignant influences who are eager to fill this "trust vacuum."
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they won't. All NFTs are hosted on hilariously centralized services like googleusercontent.com and similar. Browse through https://opensea.io/ , the most prominent NFT marketplace at the moment. Digging through the DOM of their website will reveal a lot of links to quite standard content storage solutions. They usually go through a bit of trouble to prevent people from simply clicking "view image in new tab" to…
Almost all NFTs are hosted on IPFS. Opensea shows a CACHED version of the image, because pulling them directly from IPFS puts unnecessary strain on the network and is comparatively slow. The contract for the NFT generally just points to an IPFS identifier (a sha256 hash of the content), and it's up to the viewer (a website like opensea) to decide what ipfs gateway to use. Even if the ipfs network died you could still…
The amount of artwork NFTs that has "Metadata: Centralized" in their details appear very high, although it's difficult to get any exact numbers. As far as I can tell, OpenSea doesn't provide an option to filter based on this field.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know enough biology to know if the metaphor is apt, but I think he's wrong. Small groups in isolation speciate faster, but that's not the same as evolving faster. I would expect that larger groups spanning many diverse ecological niches would feature greater diversity within the group and are able to explore more evolutionary avenues. Perhaps that's what we see intellectually as well.
Interesting, so by speciate faster, you mean they will evolve to be successful in their little niche, but probably become less resilient to diverse conditions?
Like English sparrows in the US, they are here about 150 years or something and spread all across North America, and are showing significant regional variations in plumage and song. No doubt they would give rise to a whole clade of sparrow species if the humans all disappeared.
Rapid speciation on and island is like the finches on Galapagos; there were just one kind of bird on the island so all the ecological notches were available (bug eating, grass eating, seed eating on ground, eating stuff on trees, etc.), so those finches evolved relatively quickly into different species with different beaks and behaviors to get different food sources.
Evolution itself is more or less constant process, genes reproduce in populations whose size is constrained by the conditions, with heritable variations. How much evolution pushes the phenotypes (actual bodies of the organisms) to change over time has a lot to do with the conditions and probably a lot to do with “how does the genetic and developmental system allow things to change easily” nature of the creature. So getting larger or smaller is real simple. Flying is possible but takes more time. For vetebrates, getting four eyes seems to be right out. Getting smarter seems to be hard. Etc.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why there are rules and layers of checks to actually IPO - another term misappropriated to ICO like currency was misappropriated for cryptocurrency to mislead; stock markets would lose all trust and credibility if they didn't curate and require due diligence.
Perhaps we should look forward to innovations like “Special Purpose Acquisition Coins” then? SPACs have gotten rid of much of the diligence traditionally part of the IPO process.
The filings are pretty much the same. The biggest difference, as far as I know, is there's no roadshow to get institutional investors onboard. But this isn't technically a requirement of an IPO. And a direct listing also skips that.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#298The founders of this DAO are paying themselves >$30,000/month [0] out of the pool to look after an old book and to commission an animated TV series [0] from a company that does music videos and commercials [1]. [0] https://snapshot.org/#/dunedao.eth/proposal/0x2038fc240d0e85... [1] https://robleridgeproductions.com/about/
Someone else here pointed out that it's likely the total budget for the 4 person core team is $30k, not $30k each.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#299For most of human history, people have lived in small, local information bubbles which were hard to penetrate with facts from the outside world. We see this manifest as the pre-industrial global patchwork of weird and wonderful religious/spiritual/cultural variety. Then somehow the world started to join up and information began to seep into local cultures and sweep away a lot of these pre-rational beliefs. And for a…
In the last ten years there has been a significant change in mainstream content from information (what) to personalities (who). A major driver has been the adoption of social media by the mainstream: Uncle Bob pawing his cell phone while on the toilet. Both closed circle SM (checking on your friends and acquaintances) and public facing SM (checking the influencers) have created a whole new, uncontrolled feeding groun…
> Both closed circle SM (checking on your friends and acquaintances) and public facing SM (checking the influencers)
It's even worse than that because of the algorithms.
They show you more of what they think you like, but the bubbles are quite narrow. For example, suppose you want to see what's going on with all the vaccine skepticism.
There is a bubble centered around Joe Rogan. They're talking about how the existing vaccines aren't as effective against Omicron as they were against previous variants, and debating whether the (in both cases low) incidence of myocarditis in adolescents is higher from the vaccine or from the virus.
Then there is a bubble centered around Alex Jones. They're telling you that Bill Gates is putting microchips in the vaccines and that the vaccines cause protein folding and therefore prions.
You click on the wrong thing and the algorithm decides you want to see more of that. It surrounds you with the people who already believe those things. Now you're the skeptic and they're the establishment and you're trying to remember enough of high school biology to describe the relationship between protein folding and prions while conceding that maybe Bill Gates does suck and maybe that does make him technically a vampire, but could someone explain what that has to do with population control?
Meanwhile there are plenty of scientists who are happy to explain it to you, but once it decides you want to see fear porn, you don't get to see the people debunking it anymore.
And Alex Jones is just the canonical exemplar. The bubbles like that form everywhere. You have people who still believe that the people Kyle Rittenhouse shot were black, or that Julian Assange reports to Putin.
One of the most self-perpetuating ones is the myth that "misinformation" is caused by not banning "bad" people, when it's actually caused by not exposing everyone to contrary viewpoints so that they lose the opportunity to have their mistakes corrected.
But telling people what they want to hear sells more advertising than eat your vegetables, so doing the wrong thing is more profitable.
Re: €2.6M spent for a book at auction, believed they would own the IP
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps we should look forward to innovations like “Special Purpose Acquisition Coins” then? SPACs have gotten rid of much of the diligence traditionally part of the IPO process.
From my understanding may also be taking advantage of the money the government's currently printing - at the externalized cost of general society, an additional wealth transfer? I haven't looked read too much into SPACs yet, though they certainly did start to pop out of nowhere and in huge sums as "special purpose vehicles;" I'd sure love to raise a quick $1 billion SPAC though to fund my endless projects.
That's not how SPACs work. You can only use the funding raised as basically a dowry for a merger with a private company. It's low risk to investors because they simply get their money back if 2 years pass without a merger, and the people who run the SPAC lose everything they spent on getting their SPAC to the stock market. Right now, the market is saturated with SPACs, but there are only so many private companies looking to go public.