Just seems like everything is “this company did this to their employees” and less about “this novel messaging protocol offers these measured pros and cons.” Or similar

And yes, I could post things, but I’m referring to what hits the top, 12h.

Can anyone rec communities with less of a biz and politics and wfh vs in-office vibe?

  • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Crypto never will be anything, that’s the point I’m making.

    AI is a tool, a good one. It can’t take your job anymore than the cotton gin took the job of textile workers, but the professional can make plenty of use to help shorten their workdays with it. As it gets integrated into private companies data environments you’ll see more in house models trained on company data that will assist cloud engineers and data engineers in getting things straightened out.

    Crypto is a invented currency that was only good for buying drugs and NFT’s are literally a scam.

    • rglullis@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The annoying thing with these reductionist views is that they miss the potential applications.

      “JPEGs in the blockchain” is indeed a pointless use case and were so hyped because of greed and a ZIRP world. This doesn’t mean that all applications built on top of NFTs are worthless. For example, one could see a well-thought ticketing system based on NFTs that could destroy Ticketmaster.

      • Womble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No it couldn’t, it provides nothing that a few database tables couldn’t. NFTs themselves are essentially just pointers to things that can be traded, you are always going to be entirely at the mercy of whatever system is deciding what is being pointed to.

        • rglullis@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          nothing that a few database tables couldn’t.

          Transparent consensus about the data can not be achieved with a few database tables.

          You could make the argument that this does need a blockchain and it could be built on another decentralized consensus protocol (like Paxos), but then you’d lose the permissionless aspect of it and such a system would likely end up being control by a monopoly or oligopoly, like the whole ticketing industry is controlled by Ticketmaster today.

          whatever system is deciding what is being pointed to.

          The ticketing use case could work precisely because a ticket is just a pointer. Access to the actual venue/seat would still need to be verified in person, but the issuing of tickets and transactions in the primary/secondary markets are the nasty parts that are exploited by Ticketmaster and gives them so much moat.

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Transparent consensus about the data can not be achieved with a few database tables.

            and why is that needed?

            The ticketing use case could work precisely because a ticket is just a pointer. Access to the actual venue/seat would still need to be verified in person, but the issuing of tickets and transactions in the primary/secondary markets are the nasty parts that are exploited by Ticketmaster and gives them so much moat.

            And someone in the real world has to look at that and let the person through the door, how does the ticket being an NFT help that at all compared to a database entry with a ticket ID tied to a name and requiring ID? Even if it was an NFT how does that help when you have no control over the system that maps NFTs to seats? Come to think of it, an NFT would just encourage scalping as they are inherantly tradeable and so vulnerable to buying by anonymous accounts and then reselling.

            • rglullis@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              so vulnerable to buying by anonymous accounts and then reselling.

              Make the smart contract that forbids multiple transfers, or make transfer more expensive after the initial purchase (unless authorized by some pre-approved address and/or an address that has an associated real ID)

              why is that needed?

              Because we’d like to have a system that can not be manipulated or controlled by a single entity?

              • Womble@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because we’d like to have a system that can not be manipulated or controlled by a single entity?

                You still do though, that’s the entire point. Whenever your token interacts with the real world who ever is doing that is a single entity controlling the process.

                Make the smart contract that forbids multiple transfers, or make transfer more expensive after the initial purchase (unless authorized by some pre-approved address and/or an address that has an associated real ID)

                So less protection against reselling than a ticket with the name of the person who originally bought it, while also milking large amounts of transfer fees to now have a much larger token with code in it. Why would you you want to have a more complex, more expensive, less good system?

                • rglullis@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  that is a single entity controlling the process.

                  At any given individual event, yes. But if there is any abuse, it is easy to change said entity.

                  What I have in mind would be that we can take all these separate functions performed by a large company and break them apart. A centralized organization could be broken apart, but that would require a lot more political power than by simply designing up the system in a way that all functionality is spilt and has to conform to a specific interface.

                  transfer fees… more expensive

                  Are you talking about the blockchain fees or the ones established by the “smart contract”? If the former, those can easily be avoidable by using a separate blockchain (specific for the use case and backed/supported by the participating venues, which would be glad to pay anything reasonable compared to the racket run by Ticketmaster), or like I said, not even use a blockchain at all and just stick with a permissioned consensus system.