- Joined: Nov 1, 2011
- Last Login: Jun 21, 2022, 7:52am EDT
- Posts: 3
- Comments: 2,330
Former video game strategist, current fashion strategist. Video games were more fun.
Share this profile
Comment 1 reply, 1 rec
For what it’s worth, this is basically the same tech that lets them figure out when underage kids are getting dick picks
I hope Jian Yang got paid. SeeFood!
Comment 3 recs
Man, I thought it was awful. Little made sense. Little was of consequence. They needed two keys, but both fit into either lock. Neither looked special. Puzzles weren’t puzzling.
And the whole "we both have a ship worth $2.5B, let’s fight so no one gets anything" was dumb
Brainless, made worse by having a Wahlberg
Comment 2 recs
I think prints offer a really, really interesting contrast to my POV, frankly, and I hadn’t considered it before.
The Steam vs Car (or even used disc from Gamestop) is a debate I’ve had repeatedly with people angry at not being able to sell used Steam games.
Disney actually owns movies and music. It has full rights. They can open a streaming service, which becomes the only way to legally view those movies, which have high demand. They can create LEGO sets, or action figures, based on those movies. In other words, that ownership conveys enormous revenue streams worth exponentially more than the movie cost to make.
You cannot open a streaming service to view your rock or monkey, and no one would pay to see it, anyway.
The most expensive NFT ever sold was almost $92 million. That’s a comparable cost, adjusted for inflation, to Despicable Me 2, which brought in almost a billion dollars at the box office, plus DVD and streaming, plus action figures and merch, plus licensing and tie ins, etc. Which is better to own?
Do you see a bit of a difference between owning the full rights to an in-demand movie, and owning a pointer to a picture few care about and anyone can easily access already?
Comment 2 replies, 4 recs
Personally, I dislike prints, and prints rarely gain in value, unless there’s historic significans.
In the case you linked to, there’s historic significance:
Gursky produced a very large chromogenic colour print of the photograph, mounted it onto acrylic glass, and then placed it in a frame.6 The image itself measures 73 by 143 inches (190 cm × 360 cm), while the frame measures 81 by 151 inches (210 cm × 380 cm)
There are only 6 prints out there, made by the artist himself, and absolutely gigantic – 12 feet wide. Only 2 are in private collections.
You can download that and print it. You likely will not get a high enough resolution to make it 12 feet wide. It will not have been produced and framed by the photographer.
With an NFT, if I right click and save as, I get an absolutely identical version, I just don’t have ownership. Ownership doesn’t seem to be very valuable to most people, which is why most people feel that most NFT values will crater. Owning it doesn’t really give you anything unique over what anyone else has of the piece.
Comment 2 recs
Anecdotally, the only people I know using this regularly are Tesla owners, so no surprise.
Also, it seems the ones using it irresponsibly on social media are Tesla owners, again, no surprise.
I’ve been impressed with the Tesla implementation.
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
"Ownership" is really less critical, though still important.
There’s a tangible difference between having a Van Gogh on your wall, for example, and having a print. There is no tangible difference between owning a digital file and having a copied version.
Think about it for a second. Did people gleefully give up their CD collections for mp3s, and later, Spotify? Absolutely. Because the digital versions are interchangeable, and having one is the same as having another. This is why companies are loathe to let you resell your Steam game – because there’s no value to a "new" version over a used digital one.
Contrast that with a physical item, such as a car. There’s enormous value for a new over a used. They’re not interchangeable.
"But I own it!" isn’t really anything that matters when these are so readily available. "But I get royalties" is somewhat meaningless when not all NFTs offer royalties and none seem to really be generating any royalties, nor appear to be in the foreseeable future, certainly not in the current implementation people are defending here.
Comment 1 rec
"parts of the royalties" hahahahahahahahahaha
Comment 2 replies, 68 recs
You don’t see a difference between a physical painting and an NFT?
Comment 1 reply, 36 recs
Comment 1 reply, 6 recs
You’d be ok with your boss watching porn in front of you and all your employees and coworkers?
They’re going there, anyway, for most people.
And I’d rather risk a hack than risk losing them forever. Or someone taking my phone to see a vacation photo and scrolling one too far.
Comment 2 replies, 5 recs
I really wish Google Photos was better at this. Currently, there is a locked folder you can set up, but it doesn’t go to the cloud, so if your phone gets lost, you lose all the things so private you didn’t want to share with others. Seems so incredibly short sighted.
Comment 1 reply, 10 recs
I think my biggest fear would be buying a $700 system, only to have it undersell and be either undersupported or not supported, leading to app issues or the cartridges ceasing production.
I know, it’s an issue with most anything these days, but this feels particularly vulnerable, and is something you need to last multiple years to get value out of.