LexiMax

joined 1 year ago
[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Elon never intended to buy Twitter, he always intended to back out of the deal from the beginning, either as a headline-grabbing move or as some form of stock manipulation. His miscalculation is that he didn't realize that the existing Twitter management was eager to sell due to the site treading water in terms of profitability, and were willing to take him to court to make the deal go through.

The boat-anchor around his ankle is that he had to borrow a lot of money to honor the purchase. Advertising revenue would've always been decimated by his enabling the right, but the enormous debt hanging over his head is why the site is visibly cracking at the seams so soon after his purchase. Of course, he did favors for his political allies, but that was a move made out of opportunism, not conspiracy.

If I'm making him sound like he's playing 5D chess, he's not. He made a dumb decision that blew up in his face. He's screwed. He knows he's totally screwed. So he's doing what any CEO would be doing in his position - cutting costs, lying about why the site is having issues, and coming up with hare-brained ideas to try and generate revenue. It's 100% performative CYA, because when the site is finally repossessed by his creditors, at least he can claim he tried something.

[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So it’s a matter of being relatively easy to scam people with it?

That is merely a side-effect of one of the original sins of programmable blockchains - the fact that there is a delegation of responsibility of data management from a database administrator to whoever happens to have control of that data, and the controller can only manage that data according to the underlying code of the NFT.

This only sounds appealing if you've never actually touched a database in your life. There are too many points of failure, and said mistakes are much harder to correct.

[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Essentially, the NFT is "proof of ownership" only insofar as what is put into the blockchain is correct and accurately reflects reality.

If you don't vet what goes on the blockchain for accuracy, the blockchain is useless, and if you do validate, you don't need a blockchain because the validator can just use a traditional database.

It is a solution in search of a problem.

[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (6 children)

If I buy a lot of baseball cards for 1 cent, at least they don't suffer from the oracle paradox.

NFT's were nakedly a solution in search of a problem that weren't even a very good solution to the problem they were purporting to solve. That's what pisses people off.

[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Haven't dealt with it personally, but know of people who have. The one constant is that the places I've heard of that have a RTO mandate are short-staffed and brain-drained.

[–] LexiMax@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago

The reliability of third-party nitter instances has been hit or miss due to the churn, but the main nitter.net instance still works fine. They appear to be using automatically-obtained guest accounts.

https://github.com/zedeus/nitter/issues/983