I have tried given a simple test suite and asking for an implementation that fulfills it, then asking to modify its impl and the test suite with a new requirement and it did it
it's really useful if you work on projects that need different version of dependencies, as you can define on a folder basis what jdk or python versions you want to have. You can even commit this to git so that everyone has the same env locally
it's mostly lots of code fragments and incrementally building on whatever he's trying to convey, is not like he put a brain dump or a wall of text as per when that phrase is used.
So your comment doesn't ring true in this case imo
Maybe a bit overdone, but I think in between lines the interviee well knows the intended solution to the question and is just toying with the interviewer to make a point, much like a cat playing with a barely dead mouse
NFTs represent something else completely, I'm talking of other use cases that are enabled by the same underlying tech - with the disclaimer I mentioned above of pending issues to be resolved, particulaly gas fees
if you are not aware of how something like what I described could work maybe have a read around on some simple smart contracts where there is hidden state (like guess the answer or contracts that implement role access/control for certain features)
even if you could update state* once you gave access to anything it's out of your control as it might be cached somewhere else.
This is why I mentioned for future changes rather than what you already allowed.
And you are right twitter can still have that clause, and they can cause they have somethign to offer (i.e. a userbase) but if the content of everyone would be somewhere else other competiors would be able to offer it and then competiion for users would tend to make those terms more accessible to those that care enough to read them.
* you can by doing it as in an event sourcing system. After all blockchains+smart contracts are similar to a giant state machine
I wasn't talking about it as in copyright / legal sense, and more in the I can allow others to access a snapshot of it at a given time and/or remove access to it for future content if I wish to do so.
Now the relationship is the reverse, I give content to some org and they can do as they wish with it; I'm surrending it for them to use in exchange of them allowing me to use their platform for free.
e.g. from Twitter's terms of use:
> By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed (for clarity, these rights include, for example, curating, transforming, and translating).
If the content was hosted somewhere else and then displayed on twitter instead, this would not be the case or I could revoke it in the future but still be able to distribute such content via other means
Now, if I want to use another site then I need to duplicate the content myself.
Since all that they really offer is the userbase/community, its very hard for competitors to come into play and offer better terms or capabilities.
In fact, they can change these terms at anypoint and I can do very little about it aside of deleting my account (if they even allow you to do that!)
I don't think web3 is just competing with traditional finance, or at least not in the restricted sense of investing/especulation. Also web3 is not replacing anything that already exists, just like "web2" didn't (and to be frank web2 was as much as hyped term than anything else)
I see it more as retaining ownership some of the content we produce and happily give to twitter, youtube, facebook etc to monetise and have some more control over it
Things as being able to:
* remove access to site to display my content but still be published somewhere else if I wish to do so
* be able to serve my content to people that prefer to use another tools without relying on twitter to have a public API as long as I granted them access
* get the person getting hits and making money of ads to share some of that with me, or maybe pay my gas fees
* not be shut down because a given site or state decides my content is not worthy of it, they are still allowed to do this, but I could still continue via another "frontend" and people can choose
There are more use cases around this, and there are many gaps yet around the economics of it to make it accessible/free, make it desirable, legality, liability etc which I believe remain to be solved
My main point being that such tradeoff wasn't obvious at the time, and also the cloud offering back then was very inferior to what it has evolved into and that we are familiar now
I'm not saying the same will neccessarily repeat with so called web3, but we might be at a similar stage - in this case the sensation(?) of ownership of one's content is a desired attribute at the expense of efficiency in computing/processing terms for some use cases
it's pretty much the wild west now and not fully understood, but if it attracts investment with time something might come out of it.
I don't really know much about web3 or what it will happen in the future, but these same debates happened ith other techs before which are now mainstream in a similar fashion as this here.
People like pointing out echo chambers all around while they are also in one.
Remember all the feathers ruffled with cloud computing? It just servers in a data center! Serverless? There are still servers! web2.0 s just ajax requests!
If people dump money into it, then something is likely to come out whether is better or not than what it was before. Maybe is worse, or maybe something will be built on top of it that will be better or some othere political event might make it relevant. Who knows
there are a few clones of social media sites like https://orbis.club/, there are others that are like reddit or similar but I don't remember their urls.
As other commenter mentioned below, "web3" is mostly storing transactional info into a blockchain and then linking stuff to ipfs + some layer on top to display this.
For example that orbis site, indexes/caches the data in the bc to be able to display it as per their use case. So the only real difference is that the "tweets" are not owned by them but by each user. For anything else it's still a normal web app.
I don't know how this works legally, but there was a link from Vitalik's blog a few days ago explaining this. Say if a user uploads CP or some other illegal/offensive content the site can hide it but can't delete it. I'm not sure where liability would fall on here.
Similar, the case with Twitter blocking Trump a few years ago, maybe another site could still allow him to continue if they wish to do so by displaying the same content
I guess there are more use cases that distill from here, not sure how beneficial they are or might be, and just as many things in technology it is not 100% neccessary that the solution is better than something that already exists, it just needs to get traction and attract people/investment. Whether that happens with web3 is just to be seen I suppose.
Also descentralised exchanges are things coming up, but this gets even muddier with all the compliance requirements so not sure where those will end up