I think a compromise on copyright could be a good middle ground in future. In the same way that I'm happy to wait for a game to go on sale before I buy and play it, I'd be happy to wait until a movie or series enters the public domain so I can consume it without paying. Obviously not for hundreds of years, or 56 years. But if Netflix/HBO etc shows and movies became free to watch after 6-7 years, most piracy traffic could be easily captured by legal platforms that are more convenient and accessible to more viewers. I struggle to see how it would not further relegate piracy to a niche activity done by very few, or be bad for the content producers in any significant way
I'm in my 30s and the only time I was taught anything about the holocaust was in an analysis of the pianist towards the end of high school. When I was younger I had a vague notion of Hitler as a baddie but no knowledge of the events during the holocaust. The first representation of Hitler I saw was a cartoon parody of him singing O Tannenbaum in hell on Mr Hanky's Christmas Classics. I recognised at the time that the humour depended on an existing understanding of what Hitler represents, which I didn't have, so I went and found out on my own. But I can imagine for a lot of people even in my age group watching that, theyd understand Hitler is a guy people think should be in hell without connecting that to an understanding of the horrible shit he did. In that way I can somewhat understand higher agreement with the holocaust being overstated when young people are asked to take a position (i.e. "I don't know" doesn't appear to be an answer). Because they just don't know
It was the wrong question and I just guided you on how it was wrong. For it to be the correct question you should have qualified what you meant by using that phrase. I'm sorry you didn't understand that.
The post headline is "each Bitcoin transaction uses 4,200 gallons of water". This generalisation is based on one Bitcoin mining operation which upon cursory inspection is actually a LNG electric company. I'm speculating but likely the reason they mine Bitcoin is to make it worth keeping the gas fire on during off-peak.
If you're going to use a single operation to generalise about the whole network, why use this small weird outlier and not the bigger companies like Riot, Bitfarms, Genesis? I could turn around and say "each bitcoin transaction is fully renewable" based on the operations of any of those companies, and the claim would be even more substantiated than that headline is by that report. But it would still be wrong. Neither example is representative of the energy required by Bitcoin.
Now, I'm not coming to the party trying to push Bitcoin as a transactional currency, like you seemed to have a notion of it trying to compete as. I don't think it's much good for that. But I'm not about to go believing some made up shit about how a computer solving some cryptographic puzzles has a comparable environmental impact to filling an entire swimming pool. Gimme a break dude.
It's because texting has been very cheap there for a long time. It's now very cheap where I am too, but in high school everyone was using stuff like MSN Messenger where possible. At that time teens in the US were texting. It became cheap where I am by the time WhatsApp came out, so we have a mix of WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and texting
It's the mocap/animations. Every character in every scene in the trailer is fully mocapped. Crowds dancing in sync together at a club, reacting to eachother on the beach, parking on a busy street and exiting cars. I'm sure some of it is in the game, in scripted encounters. Probably not random sandbox gameplay people think of when they think GTA
You'd need to qualify what you mean by 'exchanging any value of money'. If it's handing a note of currency to your friend, the energy cost of circulating the bill is associated. If you mean someone not in the same room, then you need to accept the associated caveats of running the traditional finance system e.g. ATM costs, financed emissions, and other essential components of the fractional reserve bank concept. Totally aside from the server requirements to physically run the network. Without all of those things, you can't exchange any value of money.
Traditional finance almost certainly consumes as much water as Bitcoin on a per-capita basis, and on an absolute basis traditional finance uses way, way more. The difference is the global network of banking operations is opaque. For Greenidge Generation, their 2.5EH/s hashrate is a part of their product, advertising it is a sales tactic. Just makes it a bit less abstract to pick apart and then make broad generalisations about the sum hashrate of the network based on this LNG-powered site the report is based on. For what it's worth, that's not really a feasible way to mine Bitcoin. It suggests energy generation is their real product.
The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it's clear. The monetary policy essentially dictates it over time. Reward yield decreases for the same amount of work. You don't need to get into whether it's environmentally sustainable, because it's not economically sustainable unless you're generating a fully renewable energy source.
Yeah we're deprioritising the platform you use, because it's niche. We have analytics, and they say your use case doesn't matter. Just accept it and keep paying us, like all those other times
To draw a comparison between bitcoin energy consumption and water use is plainly seeking to remove context from the conditional justification for Bitcoin's energy use, which has nothing to do with water. It's deliberately sensationalistic. Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water. As a statement on whether that consumption is justified, it's meaningless.
If one site accounts for 50% of all web traffic, we're faced with an inescapable decision to accept or reject that this site is the primary purpose of the internet now. If you have any arguments for why we should decide to limit it, please put them forward! On this end, it seems like the basis for anything other than the neutral position (i.e. to prioritise preserving the neutral relationship between the user and the internet access) is arbitrary.
Whether the energy consumption of an action is justified depends on the efficiency of the energy use, the practical aim of the action, whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions, and the energy source.
Simply stating it has no purpose and that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow analogous to mass water wastage, does not seek to investigate whether Bitcoin's energy use is justified. It's disingenuous and reactionary.
Of course, a delay is preferable to a rushed launch. Cyberpunk showed we can have both, though. I'm just pushing back on this new idea that in-engine footage is a substitute for gameplay. While we're deducing stuff based on the lack of gameplay, the game not being feature complete would mean that whatever is possible in-engine is irrelevant anyway. The whole later step of scaling and optimising to the platforms they're releasing on hasn't happened yet
The launch window being so critical is the same reason why they should just say "coming soon", or announce an announcement or something for a trailer like this, in my opinion. That way the first public release about the game doesn't immediately set the tone that starts heaping pressure on the dev team. Keep in mind that tone was already set by leaks.
I don't mind the way the actual trailer was done, but I'd definitely have preferred to see actual gameplay given they gave a release window. It telegraphs a rushed release, because if it was feature-complete they'd show gameplay
Had a look in my usual areas and found listings but no sources. Listings were only added recently though (11/30/23) so maybe international distribution is being organised.
I think it's plausible that moments of intense catharsis or realisation etc can cause some kind of physical dilation, like a rush of blood or endorphins or some other kind of neurochemical which you may feel as occuring "in your brain". I suffer from occasional BPPV and that's how I originally felt the symptoms, like some force was squeezing my brain and it was going to implode. But I came to understand the feeling to be inflamed blood vessels surrounding my skull rather than anything to do with my brain. It was distinctly more an all-over-the-head feeling than any headache I've had
Adblock = a direct obstacle to the longterm feasibility of Google's ability to ever reconcile the money drain against their primary product (advertising) and end up in the black
The current state of Youtube's profitability is a long way off mattering for anything. For all it costs to run, it can be sustained indefinitely without much issue. This will remain the case until Youtube advertising reaches saturation. Given how much stuff like TV ads still cost, we can safely say this is still a long way off, regardless of the potential rise of competing platforms.
The landscape of youtube & adblockers is unlikely to be the same then, and restrictive measures taken now aren't really representative of what it'll be like. The actions taken now are for 2 reasons: maintenance of consumer expectation, so that it doesn't feel like site monetization is changed substantially when the money faucet gets switched on. And market research.
I have no doubt that a primary intent behind recent actions to do with delays or slowdowns was to measure the blowback, using it a yardstick for further actions not yet taken, which will eventually culminate in some action which actually meaningfully changes Youtube's monetization. But this may not be for many years.
None of us here are really experiencing problems, we have only heard of them and are discussing them. When something new happens, you'll hear "what else is new? they've done [something similar to] this many times before", with those people ignoring that the historic actions were totally mitigated everytime. And in the process, we the vanguard of the internet keeping Google's advertising monopoly restrained by engaging with adblockers, become conditioned to yield to advertising and a Google-controlled internet.
Because that's the only way they can win. Barring serious pro-Google changes to privacy laws around the world, the ultimate means to force advertising simply isn't available to them. Their best hope is to try and convince us that blocking ads is just too much of a hassle, ideally without ever actually making it so in a way that causes some mass migration away from Youtube. That's not a hard line to tread
I randomly got interested in a niche industry and started hyperfocusing on learning about it in my free time, without any intent other than indulging my curiosity. Sometime afterwards I was looking for work and saw an opportunity in that industry. I responded and was able to come across like a highly experienced enthusiast whom specialised in the field the company needed experience in. They hired me and I quickly became the most senior person in the company in technical areas related to the industry. It was a large pay increase, the company is great and I've been with them for many years now. None of it would've happened without my highly inquisitive nature, which I consider as a positive effect of my ADHD. The specific opportunity coming up was still complete luck. But given the number of tangents I've gone on in the past, diving deep into learning the intricacies of some niche or hobby, I'd likely be open to similar kinds of opportunities in those areas in ways I've never even considered. I've always thought of it as just 'going with the flow', but I think for the average neurotypical person it's often unreasonable to think that would actually get you far in life.
The villages being meaningfully separate spaces is more pertinent than how far apart they are. I'm on the instance that I'm on because of communities it federates with I'm interested in participating in. I moved instances to achieve this.
gila @ gila @lemm.ee Posts 0Comments 354Joined 2 yr. ago
I think a compromise on copyright could be a good middle ground in future. In the same way that I'm happy to wait for a game to go on sale before I buy and play it, I'd be happy to wait until a movie or series enters the public domain so I can consume it without paying. Obviously not for hundreds of years, or 56 years. But if Netflix/HBO etc shows and movies became free to watch after 6-7 years, most piracy traffic could be easily captured by legal platforms that are more convenient and accessible to more viewers. I struggle to see how it would not further relegate piracy to a niche activity done by very few, or be bad for the content producers in any significant way