|
Burt Sexual posted:1 gig fiber has been one mile from my house for 2 years at least now. Zuck fix that first. My brother can't get cable internet because of some BS the telecom did with phone cables on his street in the 90s. He's stuck on slow, unreliable radio. Last year they connected fibre 600 metres away from him. It's so close even the internet providers' salespeople are shocked when they check and find out their company will not offer anything but wireless at his address. There are no plans to expand the fibre network to him because replacing old phone cables nobody uses anymore would be too much effort.
|
#
¿
May 5, 2019 08:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:
Weren't Lazy Lions a pretty notorious rug pull?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
GigaPeon posted:Apostrophe S Self Own. I mean, this is fake, as you can clearly tell by the fact this is a photo of downtown Warsaw, what with the Polish street signage and Polish language ads and the extremely recognisable Rotunda building. And also the building underneath that banner hasn't looked that way in years. Also I think this bus model has been retired a few years back, too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
There's sub.io, too. They host dedicated servers for games.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:We just need someone to create a new coin from nothing, goto the company and buy it off them with this nothing, split this nothing up between the creditors and the owners, Consider, though: they'd be giving that nothing, which they themselves will assign value to, to the management and creditors of a company that has nothing. They would literally be paying something (at least from a strictly marginalist point of view) for a company that has no stores, no inventory, no employees, and not even a name. Would that something be worth much? No. But it would be worth more than negative billion dollars, which is what ex-BBBY has. The reason why there's no way the other side would accept this deal is (aside from the fact that yeah it probably wouldn't be worth it) that they would probably prefer not to get litigated for trading on an IP that is not theirs anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
selec posted:When’s the last time you saw refreshingly less advertising in a public space than you’d noticed there before? Last year. A bunch of cities in Poland passed legislation regulating the size, amount, and placement of ads in public spaces, and they've now gone into effect. This is Gdynia, these are from Kraków. Many other towns and cities did it too. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2023 23:49
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:what are moons? It's a cryptocoin developed by the r/cryptocurrency moderating team, it has no relation to reddit gold as far as I know. But a couple of years ago reddit admins were going pretty hard into blockchain and crypto and agreed to integrate Moons into that subreddit and facilitate stuff like governance votes. Turns out this was a pointless endeavour and they don't want to do the extra work, which apparently requires them to manually do stuff rather than just maintain, so they're removing it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Wouldn't they keep mining anyway because while it may be unprofitable now, they all expect bitcoin to go to $infinity? No, you're confusing Bitcoin with memestocks. Bitcoin miners are in it for the easy money, as are in fact most of the crypto evangelists at this point. True believers are a tiny minority, and even they don't think it's some kind of hack for the economy that will spit out impossible phone number values if only they hodl hard enough; they think it will at some point replace real currencies because ??? blockchain magic. But miners are industrialists, they own giant computer racks and want an ROI. They will downscale if they have to, it's happened before.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
So the part people are missing in why do NFT bros think this makes sense is how NFT projects ostensibly function in practice. In NFT projects, the way the devs make their money is by selling the mint of tokens. Unless your project has some unbelievable hype around it, you don't do this at once during the initial minting. You're going to hang around for a few weeks or months, gradually offloading the tokens to new buyers. But during that time you cannot just do nothing: if you don't keep the hype going, if the project does not seem dynamic and promising, it's going to sputter out and die. Sure, that's quite an acceptable outcome for you anyway - you're going to make off with thousands of dollars even if you sell just a handful of ape jpegs (or at least you could do that before Line Goes Up, I'd presume the prices aren't as favourable nowadays), but that'd still be leaving a bunch of cash on the table. You want to sell as many as you can before you peace out. And the way you do that is by "creating value," meaning price manipulation. Speculation, promises, and pie-in-the-sky roadmaps are good before you've started, but once the rubber has hit the road you need that line to be going up. How do you do that? Pumping by coordinated buys, obnoxious advertising and spam, and burning part of the unsold mint to create artificial scarcity. (Of course, your dream scenario is to end up in a Yuga Labs position where you become an NFT household name and the rubes will buy whatever you poo poo out, at which point your "business model" switches from minting tokens to grifting their holders with mutants and dookie dashes and impromptu lasik conventions, but your tactics remain surprisingly similar.) NFT people understand on a fundamental level the Ponzi scheme nature of this environment, even if they're not honest about it even with themselves in many cases, and even if many of them lack any real context to realise most environments (like video games) don't work this way - put a pin in this for the moment. But that understanding is clear in how they operate and what they postulate. So in their eyes, if you're a company that makes a video game where NFTs function as, say, items, you will actively pursue the ability to put them in other people's games. That's creating utility, that's increasing the value of the tokens so that your "NFT investors" can get a return, which makes sense, since then you can mint more tokens and command a higher price for them, so you make money. Conversely, let's say the actual item stats are not inherent to the NFT, but maintained by the game itself and the NFT only governs ownership. If the devs mint an NFT of an in-game item that's hideously overpowered, it would be insanity for them to nerf it. This is what the "won't be patched out" part that someone raised a little upthread refers to. After all, if you actually reduce the utility of the NFT, that's wrecking "investor" confidence, driving down the NFT price, and hurting your own bottom line. Right? Not only that, but you will balance your game further in such a way that the overpowered item remains consistently, if not increasingly overpowered, since if the items in the future will be better than the ones available now, why would people buy in right now instead of waiting? Why would they purchase the items on the secondary market instead of waiting for better stuff to drop? And that would drive down prices, which would hurt your bottom line, etc. etc. This all makes sense in the context of NFT projects, where the product is, in spite of claims to the contrary, pretty fungible by virtue of being vapid and only relevant as an investment vehicle, which means it's extremely cheap to mass produce by simply telling a generative algorithm to make more. There's next to no labour or extra cost involved (for the developer) once you have your jpeg parts. It requires no further maintenance. But video games, especially online games, are definitely not like that. This is what the NFT bros fail (or pretend to fail) to notice. Any asset added to a video game requires a ton of work, and work costs money. Moreover, if something is an item in a game, then it has a function and some form of impact on the game; if, then, the game becomes worse by the virtue of that item being in it, the game will fail and future NFTs will lose that utility and become worthless anyway, so a game dev can't hope to maintain that hype-based demand for their NFTs. This is in stark contrast to your typical ape jpeg, which by definition has no actual utility and any utility linked to it is completely divorced from what that ape actually is. This all means that the business model of a typical NFT project can't work in video games (or indeed any field where you create something of use), but NFT advocates talk like it should and it would. This is the fundamental source of the disconnect between the NFT proposition and what anyone who is not completely brain poisoned by defi can see.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
The Bible posted:You're kind of describing Magic: The Gathering here. I'm not particularly well-versed in MTG balance and only vaguely aware of their complicated history with card resellers, but isn't it the birthplace of the term 'power creep?' And also they regularly cycle cards out and ban them, because their incentive structure is actually dramatically different from an NFT company?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 00:33
|
|
|
zedprime posted:What makes you think an NFT would remove their ability to ban problematic instances? I am not saying it would. I am saying that if you're an NFT guy whose only experience is with "businesses" that sell energy bills bundled with links to ugly profile pics, and you apply that incentive structure to a game, then you would probably arrive at that conclusion. Kind of a "guy who only ever saw Boss Baby" situation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2023 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 18:29 |
|
|
I live in Poland. Over here 25 years in jail is how much you get for murder (you can also get life). 25 years for financial crimes is already a tough punishment to me, if he got forty or life it'd be insane from where I'm sitting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 22:03
|
|