I don't understand I don't understand paying a premium for a rare or old item that is easily replicated. The same goes for art forgeries. Why not buy a reproduction? There is no difference in the functional value of the item before and after this revelation. I assume these games are available for emulation. I'm sick of people bsing and scamming each other by turning fun things into investment vehicles.
A bit of a tangent… but we are rather dumb animals. If you watch an animal like a Bowerbird, that expends oodles of energy to stack petals in color-coordinated piles to attract a mate, and really think hard about all the stupid stuff we do, and what the underlying impulses are that cause us to act as we do, for the most part we are not much farther ahead of a Bowerbird intellectually. We just have flowery language to express our experiences.
Collecting antique crap falls in to that type of category, I think, no matter how much people try to gussy-up the behavior.
Edit, to add: there seems to be something more attractive about truly old things vs copies, just like certain petals are more enchanting to a Bower Bird. Why this is such a strong impulse I have no idea.
One thing I find interesting about NFT collections is that the only reason it gets detractors attention is because it works …. so well? Like, we have no idea how much the baseball card issuing organization made, especially not in real time. We have no idea the total supply, or revenue or trading volume. In NFTs we have that instantly.
I think the NFT space just provides transparency into the size of the existing collectibles market.
Even the proxies we have for digital gaming stuff is just buried deep in quarterly reports of a few publicly traded companies.
Most of the facepalm worthy NFT headlines would be non-news if we even had the ability to compare it to the pre-existing collections market.
> I could have all bored ape pictures and could reproduce them infinitely. What now? How does the NFT thingy stop me from doing that?
As the grandparent poster alluded to, the history is more important than the image - the same as the fine art and collections world, but technologically enforced in the NFT world. so the transaction hash from the collection contract is more important than the image it accesses, and is way more important than your indefinite reproductions because they won't be in the collection contract. An entry in the bored ape collection contract grants you access to a variety of goods and services. The "NFT thingy" doesn't try to stop you from defrauding undiscerning onlookers or consumers that don't look at the collection contract. The "NFT thingy" prevents you from having programmatic access to gated communities.
> Actually, one can't even "verify" a NFT if the market side goes down. Because the actual DB isn't on the blockchain…
What are you referring to? Did you mean the market site? You don't need OpenSea or any site to verify current possession, prior possession, or metadata. Some styles of NFT's store metadata on their own servers, which can go down. Some styles of NFT's store metadata on more resilient services like IPFS. Some styles of NFT's store metadata on the blockchain directly. All three styles use the blockchain directly for current possession and prior possession.
Which point did you think you were making? I only wrote all that because I didn't know what you were saying specifically.
Many of last year's NFT collections are for social clubs, where proving current possession grants you access.
(if you made it this far in this thread, I should reiterate that NFTs and NFT collections have many differences. A lot of people that spend more energy not using NFT's have not noticed)
These social clubs can have a physical real world component such as conferences and events. Some fast executing NFT project creators have been able to pull the logistics off quickly, thinking of Bored Ape Yacht Club (now with a large $450m investment led by Andreesen Horowitz' a16z), and Veefriends
Many more of these social clubs are online only, including access to online worlds that are currently being called Metaverses (or usually "the metaverse", pretending others do not exist), many are for benefits conveyed in games.
But even more commonly, the interoperability is leveraged and third parties offer access to their own assets and NFT collections by granting access to people that currently possess another NFT collection. Some of these things can be very valuable. Other times, these are "airdropped" directly to the holder of a valuable NFT.
As this is programmatic, It is impossible for any of these things to ever factor in a duplicate, or for the duplicate to accrue the same value and demand (unless someone successfully built a community around the duplicate themselves)
I apologize for my terseness. The private cryptographic key, which is only known to the owner, can be used to sign transactions and such, but it is never directly shared out. Thus, cryptography prevents the retrieval of the key from the outputs.
NFTs are like collecting beanie babies. When you designate something as a collectible at the start, you’re kind of jumping the gun on that whole “value of history” idea. Some of the most cherished collectibles are the things that nobody thought would be worth anything when they originated.
for me, the value is in staring at it, running your hands over it, knowing that decades ago, perhaps hundreds of years ago, this specific object was being seen and felt by another person, just like you
a relic in the right hands is both a time machine, and a constant reminder, via all our senses, of our fleeting existence, and of what we can do in that brief time, and what we can leave behind
it's also why I like old-growth forests, which don't really require purchase
buying something mass-produced last month doesn't give the same sort of visceral, emotional connection
But the object is the story. All the stories are about creating and playing those objects. It's hardly irrational to want to own one if you're excited about the subject matter.
What if you could perfectly replicate a loved one. Would you consider the replica equivalent to the original person? At least to me, there is something special and important in knowing that the original person was a part of my personal history. It’s not about how they look or act, but it’s our common context that’s important.
If they were indeed a perfect replica that fact wouldn't matter. They wouldn't know if they were a replica, you wouldn't, and only a 3rd party could ever tell you they weren't the person you love. At that point learning whether or not this person standing in front of you is a replica can only harm either party. Would you really subject yourselves to that information if it could only hurt someone you objectively love? It's not a light choice to be considered selfishly in a vacuum, because even if they are a replica they're still perfect and a person you genuinely do love. Why on earth would you want to learn something that would make you not love them, that would alienate them from their entire sense of self? Even if is the truth, nobody stands to gain from the information. So long as neither of you can tell the difference, the truth doesn't doesn't matter. Pretty sure this exact subject comes up in like 2 or 3 episodes of Rick and Morty.
Part of what makes loved ones special is that they’re unique. We give people names because they’re unique. We don’t name things like bananas because they’re fungible. Perhaps if you had the only one copy of a loved one, you could love that person as much as the original, but if loved ones could be copied arbitrarily, I think something would be lost.
I've wondered about the subjective experience of "being alive" and whether - if I clone myself and the original me perished - I would continue to experience life. Reading the word "observer" makes me I guess I would, the clone has all my life's experiences and memories, and he'd just observe the memories, thoughts and feelings, and it'd be identical to my memories, thoughts and feelings.
Every time your loved one respirates, ingests food, and defecates, a portion of their body is replaced. The material person you know now may be completely different from the person you fell in love with.
The Ship of Theseus is not a parable. It doesn't have a lesson you're supposed to take away from it. There are different of ways of looking at the problem. The "solution" that appeals to you is probably a reflection of how you think, but there isn't one "right" answer.
For example, one answer is to look at the ship as a 4-dimensional object (the three spatial dimensions + time). Yes, the material in the 3D slice at t0 is different than at tN, but you're still looking at slices of the same object.
But that goes even deeper into a bit of the weird aspect of collecting. If I have my original 386 laying around, that is mine and is the one I used; if I get another one, even if it is the same make and model, it wasn't mine and so it's basically just a copy.
Part of it, of course, can be the "I couldn't get this when I was young, now I can" which drives up a lot of prices on old Lego sets, but there's more to it than just that, especially when collectors start buying items because they're rare, not because they once had them or wanted them.
And that's the reason I think copyright should be about 10 years. People value "authenticity" even when it doesn't make sense. There's just something about having the "original" or the "true" one. With that in mind, I think that writers would still be able to sell their books and sequels even after other writers get access to their characters and worlds. It's almost like fanfiction vs actual author. Anyone could write The Winds of Winter. Someone somewhere probably has. But if they were able to release it alongside G.R.R. Martin, I know who I'd bet on having more sales.
I'd prefer if someone who knew how to finish story without killing off the protagonist wrote this novel he's never going to write. It worked ONCE, one time. When Ned Stark was executed it was genuinely surprising and that first book was good enough to inspire many to finish the whole saga. By the end second novel I got the impression he was just trying to recycle the same story, peppering-in bits he picked up from writing workshops. Trying desperately to make new characters people might care about after killing-off anyone interesting. He has no idea how to finish a story other than an abrupt death. Woah, but wait but now Caitlin's a zombie or some shit... Yeah, no. Last you'll ever hear of that.
I didn't realize what was going on until I went to an open mic comedy night. There was a shocking number of comedians who could draw you into a joke with a compelling hook, but only precious who could follow up with a real joke. The thought occurred to me, "This is Martin. A comedian who can't figure out how a joke works." He wrote 1 good book but never grew as an author. Now he's rich and old and I don't blame him if couldn't be bothered to give a shit. Oy, what am I even talking about now? Eh, I think a spiritual successor could take GoT a lot further than he ever will.
How could someone read 1,2, or more books of GoT -- one of the greatest literary works of realism in character and worldbuilding -- and presumably enjoy them, and think that a tidy, satisfying ending is something possible, or even desirable.
I tend to stay away from anything that's marketed as (Rare|Vintage|Antique|Original). It means there's a price premium, above and beyond functionality and use value, which I'm by default unwilling to pay (e.g. musical instruments, cameras, etc - when I pick up a new hobby, I tend to go through a fairly large number of things through Kijiji to try them out and get a feel, until I settle on something that works for me long term:)
That being said, I understand in principle that there's an extra emotion & joy to be had with something possessing one of those attributes. Perhaps I'd enjoy a book signed by Arthur C. Clarke or guitar used by Mark Knopfler - though I'd make a point to read/play them rather than hide and never touch. On any given day, I have higher priorities for my money. Others with more money or different priorities, however, will make different choices.
(This simplistic framework is complicated by the notion of "Value" of course; some people believe, or tell themselves, that this is an "Investment"; like many things, this then becomes a abstract tower built on mutual belief, and people become invested [har] in believing ever so strongly. This can lead to interesting conversations unless & until you realize you have different axiomatic principles / beliefs / value perception).
Not only is there no functional advantage to buying the real thing, there is no easy way to prove for certain that you have the real thing, so even speculation is difficult.
Dick goes into this in some detail in "The Man in the High Castle". I don't think he understands it either but he gives clear examples of the behavior:
> 'All afternoon assorted officials examined the alternatives,' Mr. Tagomi said. 'This is most
authentic of dying old U.S. culture, a rare retained artifact carrying flavor of bygone halcyon day.'
> Mr. Baynes opened the box. In it lay a Mickey Mouse wristwatch on a pad of black velvet.
> Was Mr. Tagomi playing a joke on him? He raised his eyes, saw Mr. Tagomi's tense, concerned
face. No, it was not a joke. 'Thank you very much,' Baynes said. 'This is indeed incredible.'
> 'Only few, perhaps ten, authentic 1938 Mickey Mouse watches in all world today,' Mr. Tagomi
said, studying him, drinking in his reaction, his appreciation. 'No collector known to me has one,
sir.'
Of course in his story something else is happening too:
> In fact, as far as he knew, it had never occurred to them to ask themselves if the so-called historic art objects for sale in West Coast shops were genuine. Perhaps someday they would . . . and then the bubble would burst, the market would collapse even for the authentic pieces. A Gresham's Law: the fakes would undermine the value of the real. And that no doubt was the motive for the failure to investigate; after all, everyone was happy. The factories, here and there in the various cities, which turned out the-pieces, they made their profits. The wholesalers passed them on, and the dealers displayed and advertised them. The collectors shelled out their money and carried their purchases happily home, to impress their associates, friends, and mistresses.
Someone who simply wants to read an old book, play an old game, etc, may be satisfied by a replica.
Historical artifacts are not valued for their functionality. It is for the associated historical relevance. Many have more value even when their current functionality is worse than a replica.
>I don't understand I don't understand paying a premium for a rare or old item that is easily replicated.
I once worked at the library of a university. Part of my job was to check the catalogue against the actual bookshelves to make sure the books are physically present.
So I got to social science section. In particular the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx.
Now this is an national university with >170 years of history. The spreadsheet in my hand showed that there should be 9 copies of the 1908 edition on the shelf.
I found none.
Every copy has been stolen. The irony of this is just too much. Communism supporters stealing from the general public to satisfy their personal desire of collection.
Aside. A regret I have was not checking out 'The Hitler Youth' at the same time. Although I suspect the university might have removed them from the shelves.
I've had insomnia and have been successful with bi-phasic sleep. I suspend an e-reader above my head and read until I'm ready to drift off quickly. If I wake up, I keep reading. I dont need to get to work early so I don't set an alarm and it's okay if I read for an hour and sleep in.
Letting go of strict timing and associated stress has been key. I'm not looking at the clock counting down hours of sleep while trying to depart.
I read the examples as a different architype. Not elites but communicators. Experts write to be carefully technically correct, standing up to the scrutiny of other experts. Pop-sci or more general communicators write to express the ideas in a fun or relatable way, sometimes mangling them.
Just like other mass media, popular = lowest common denominator.
I choose React for personal projects because it's easy. I'm not too concerned with performance. This article doesnt spend much time on developer experience.
And to me this is the root of the problem. Developer experience is awesome so fuck the users, the usability, the performance, the scalability of the business, the time it take to build anything, the stability, the security, the robustness, and whoever will come in 2 years after we left to maintain this. I'll be gone by then.
But lots of the developer experience is actually awful. Some is good, but there's so much needless complexity that is just painful. Stockholm syndrome applies if you don't realise there's easier ways, of course.
Well there's also what might be called the "eschatological perspective on technology": time in development is spent only once, but user life time and technical resources are spent million times (at least, if it's a significant project). In this context, we may also speak of the "eschatological debt" of a project.
I changed my diet years ago to be mostly vegan (occasional eggs/cheese/honey). We buy local as much as possible, during the growing season we try to buy direct from local farmers and supplement with our own perma-culture garden in growing season and share with local community gardens.
I really enjoy coffee, as much as the next programmer, but if there's an alternative I'd be down.
I don't understand I don't understand paying a premium for a rare or old item that is easily replicated. The same goes for art forgeries. Why not buy a reproduction? There is no difference in the functional value of the item before and after this revelation. I assume these games are available for emulation. I'm sick of people bsing and scamming each other by turning fun things into investment vehicles.