No, it was quite deliberate. The "RAR" files in there are not even RAR files, they are ext4 filesystems filled with zeros. There is literallt nothing in there - the 10GB of "data" is ext4 FS metadata. https://twitter.com/originalcvk/status/1462099991858753547?s...
Because when we heard about this it was about 2am and we wanted to get it going ASAP to see what was actually in there. It did not actually take a month, since this all happened two days ago. I think if we decided to become a torrent downloading company (is that a thing?) we'd go about it a different way. Anyway total actual cost (wasted, in this case) was a few hundred bucks.
In a 1700+ word article, you found two words which were part of an analogy you disagreed with, and admit that the article clarifies in detail all of your concerns. I changed these two words from "just like" to "similar to", which solves your "problem", and you still aren't happy because it was "an outright lie". It was not a lie, only deliberate misinterpretation could possibly frame it that way, so I guess I can't make you happy. Wish you the best though!
Again, if you don't like specific wording, I invite you to write a better explanation for regular folks which is simultaneously perfectly accurate in every sense in every phrase and word you use.
I make it clear what that "ownership" means - the right to control that token on the blockchain. I make it clear that it is not enforced by any legal framework, just the blockchain. What is your issue?
Yep - a side effect of this is that NFT art has a distinct aesthetic which is different from prior digital art. I am hoping that as the space settles down, less "lazy" art and more thoughtful art can rise to the forefront again.
NFTs are a useful mechanism for the digital art medium, I hope they come to be seen in that light a bit more and a bit less as valuable in and of themselves because of the mechanism.
For real estate lawyers, a full understanding of all the laws is important. For someone who might want to buy a house, a rough understanding is sufficient. That's why I provide both. Not everybody needs to know or care about the exact details in order to decide it is worth owning a house. But if they are interested, they can learn. I hope providing both sides of it is seen as useful in that light - it is not self-contradictory to make broad analogies that are useful, then explain exactly in detail where those analogies break down.
If you have finished reading the post by now (seems you are commenting and editing as you go along), I think I make it pretty clear when it gets to more detail that the NFT is the thing you own, the right to transfer that NFT is the thing of value, and what gives it value is the person and context around who made it in the first place. Further, I make it clear exactly what rights you and others have over the media, which is basically none. Let me know when you make it all the way through, happy to continue the conversation.
Society has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of land. Subject, of course, to caveats and rules and fine print about what "ownership" of the land really means. The government can sieze it, for example. It's called a deed.
Similarly, this community has agreed that a contract written in a certain form, with the requisite signatures and registrations, conveys ownership of a piece of art. Subject, again, to caveats and rules and fine print.
If at this point you are trying to argue semantics when most of the community has a pretty intuitive sense of what exactly "owning an NFT" means, it seems a bit pointless.
I don't think that was the point of her statement. I think she was basically saying "At least before, the booth babes were obvious, and other women were assumed to be engineers who belonged there for their technical merits. Now, companies are sending attractive, non-technical female product promoters and others outside of the engineering field dressed in street clothes. Now, it is harder to tell which women are engineers and which are PR/marketing/booth babes/whatever." Seems a valid observation, though I think the real issue is that women need to vet themselves as engineers at all, while it is assumed that men at a conference are technical unless proven otherwise.
"We use innovative cloud-based patent-pending technologies to leverage synergies between verticals. In order to facilitate the maximum return on investment, we hyperfocus on execution and delivery. We find our clients often fail to think outside the box, but with our proprietary technologies we help to identify action items that directly impact the bottom line."
Bullshit Index: 0.46
Something's getting a bit fishy. You probably want to sell something, or you're trying to impress somebody. It still may be an acceptable result for a scientific text.
Pretty good figuring it's under the 5 sentence recommendation.