BBC cryptocurrency documentary pulled from air at last minute

Post by dang » Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 10:55 PM UTC

JackFr wrote: post #14

wongarsu wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was one of the channel’s headline commissions for its new regional television news show We Are England. This new show replaced the long-running Inside Out regional current affairs series, which was cancelled as part of BBC funding cuts in a decision that resulted in many investigative journalists based outside London losing their jobs. > Continuing cuts to BBC budgets and deep job cuts, caused by successive lice…

Right - BBC is the victim. > Lack of funding lead to budget cuts which lead to worse quality journalism Nonsense.

Post by mandmandam » Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 2:08 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #181

mandmandam wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Please don't take HN threads into generic political flamewar hell. It's tedious and repetitive, and therefore not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Post by globular-toast » Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 9:40 AM UTC

blfr wrote: post #173

globular-toast wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're making an argument to the status quo? I'm not sure are about states granting banks the right to create money. Do you have a source for this? As far as I can tell they do it simply because we all use them and trust them to keep the ledger. The state (meaning, the US or UK) doesn't seem to have much control over it.

I'm making the argument or maybe just an observation that the current financial system has a basis in hard reality whereas blockchain/NFT/metaverse/digital ownership seem to break away from that. The banks are obviously granted the limited right to create money by the government. Whether it's through regulation post facto or a charter a priori, by now virtually all modern states have a wide control over their banking…

Post by lawtalkinghuman » Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 12:51 PM UTC

conjectures wrote: post #89

captaincaveman wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get.

Fairly clearly what you 'get' is dependent on the surrounding system. It's one for a legal-crypto startup but you can imagine selling some NFT being linked to a contract for transfer of copyright. Maybe nobody is doing this, idk, but they could. It's also irrelevant for some applications of NFTs, so it would be a design error to expect every NFT system to enforce copyright transfers.

Post by abyrne10 » Fri, Feb 11, 2022, 8:19 PM UTC

fnord123 wrote: post #185

abyrne10 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's true that something being algorithmically generated means it's public domain. Plenty of assets for things like video games are procedurally generated, but that doesn't mean they're public domain by default.

> Plenty of assets for things like video games are procedurally generated, but that doesn't mean they're public domain by default. It does mean that.