> but what matters is the provable artist signature.
This actually means nothing in a medium where you can create infinite perfect copies of something. If we had 100,000 identical replicas of Starry Night then there would be no value in a signed original. This is how digital art fundamentally works, your "ownership" persists insofar as people respect the authority of your notary.
The notary can be a public, decentralized and distributed ledger like a Blockchain. The signature and signed copy then can be "scarce" like are signed posters right?
I cannot name a single moment in the history of my life where another person has asked me who "owns" a piece of digital art. I know people who asked about the author, but nobody cares about the owner.
Unless your ownership confers some sort of meaningful control over the piece, society will entirely ignore your rules and distribute the work however they want. It's not like you can take the case to court, anyways. You're role-playing on a extralegal asset, not a tallying stocks and bonds.
So even though in the case of Blockchain the owner has control over the piece (signature), do you think that the disconnect between "signature" and the fungible digital work is too big or meta and we should rather reconsider how we think of art, scarcity and those old dynamics? In this case will the artist signature and chain of provenance and creator<>collector connection be useless?
Let's put it this way. You're a wealthy patron that sponsors an animated feature-length film you intend to put on the blockchain. You pay the animators, the film is made, and now the hash is on the blockchain.
Strictly speaking, your "ownership" is only of the hash. Unless you register the film as a copyright, the US won't recognize your ownership of the film. You cannot stop people from sharing or deriving the work without legal protection, the utility the blockchain provides in this instance is entirely cosmetic. NFTs aren't just unnecessary - they're useless without external guarantees. The "chain of provenance" for the cloud is a scam. All digital works can be copied infinitely for $0/copy, and the ultimate irony is that the only way to stop that outcome is from abandoning the blockchain and relying on a government to protect you.
You want to know where all the talented, educated and principled technologists were during the NFT boom? Far, far away from any form of blockchain.
Sure. Modern Chinese RoRo vessels fit more than 1 shirt on them. The average shipping manifest to America looks more like 125,000 shirts, 10,000 tons displacement of natural gas, 40,000 sex toys, 20,000 Macbooks and a few dozen merchant marines making the trip. The "great cost to the environment" was manufacturing these products. The carbon footprint for shipping linens around the world is negligible, and cheaper than buying American-made.
It doesn't take a genius to see that this isn't an environmental issue, China will fuel up their boats regardless and take their surplus elsewhere. This is about American businesses outright failing to compete in the free market in places that matter, like car manufacturing and $1 tee shirt factories.
A RoRo freighter is designed for vehicles to "roll on, roll off". They don't haul regular freight.
I agree that it's very unlikely that near shoring simple electronics and T-shirts will be the big needle mover for emissions. What's much worse is the human rights violations but that's a totally different conversation from what the GP said.
WRT github, you just skip the second line when adding your upstream origin.
If you mean the greater global consciousness... nobody cares. Main is 2 fewer letters to type, you'll sound like a madman advocating for anything else. It would be easier to bring back eight-space tabs or BSD coreutils. You should make your peace with it one way or another and find a productive hill to die on.
Yeah, it's going to be an uphill battle convincing me to go through and talk to my co-workers to convince them this is something we should do, then change all of my branches back, against the defaults of most git providers. All for?
If you're going to convince me that you're "anti-woke" suggestions are better than the "woke" suggestions that got us here in the first place, do so in the traditional way. Make an argument for why moving back to master makes substantive improvements in my workflow as a developer and not because you find it aesthetically concerning. And why it is financially beneficial for the globe to spend the engineer-years it would take to make this change.
Also, I don't know that I'm convinced that 'master' in this scenario is more descriptive than 'main'.
This is sort of the inverse of the sunk cost fallacy. We are where we are, if we want to move back, it's not implicitly rational to move back solely for the opposite reason that we moved forward.
Moving back has additional costs, it doesn't simply undo the costs of moving forward.
Why? To make people type more letters and waste their employer's time?
For the record; I still use master branch for personal projects. But trying to impose it on anyone else is madman-levels of obsession that you might want to work out with a therapist. It simply does not matter to anyone with actually relevant priorities.
Not really, "master" is about as indistinct of a term as "merge" and "rebase" are. There are huge amounts of git ergononics that can be improved and master branch is one of them.
If it wasn't for muscle memory and my bash aliases, I'd be using main too. Get a life and stop bitching about default environment variables, it's a huge red-flag to employers.
We aren't going to rehash the whole history here and it's disingenuous to try discussing the accuracy / pertinence of the word master here when that wasn't what originated the change in the first place.
If you can't formulate an argument as to why "master" is meaningfully better than "main", you are no better than the culture warriors who insisted on changing it in the first place.
I'm not asking you to justify something that was unjustified in the first place -- I'm asking you to justify what you're asking people to do now. Why is it worth everyone's time and effort to migrate back to using "master" rather than "main"?
Apple has no interconnect technology comparable to what Nvidia ships to datacenters. The larger Nvidia clusters measure their addressable memory in terabytes, the value of Unified Memory at that scale is practically negligible (if not wasted bandwidth).
You're making some pretty handwavy generalizations here without a solid grasp on why Nvidia dominates GPGPU compute.
Blog posts in the form of "Here are the technologies making it possible to bring modern native gaming to the web" have been around for a long time, and that's probably the sort of thing they're referring to.
In 2015, Unity 5 was released with WebGL support. Engine support for having the Web as a target certainly led to a lot of excitement among gamers at the time too.
