Lurker > Forceful_Dragon

And no one is forcing anyone to collect them.

Just like nobody is forced to collect baseball cards. Or bobbleheads. Or coins. Or stamps.

It's like anything else, people can just not buy it. I don't own an air fryer and no one (except my wife) can force me to buy one. That doesn't mean that air fryers shouldn't exist or are somehow pointless.

NFUN posted...

The key flaw with these specific services is that they don't have to be NFTs.

Except being NFTs allows them to be digital products that can be sold. Without the authenticity it ceases to be something that people would pay for. And then in that scenario it would not exist because nobody is going to pay the artist/designer to create a product that doesn't have a market.

Now this varies from sector to sector.

Collectible NFTs: Far fewer people would pay for these or assign value to them if there was no proof of ownership. If TopShot released a new set and gave 1 of every highlight to everyone with an account then who would pay for them?

Digital Artwork NFTs: Anyone can already replicate the artwork itself, but having official ownership of some kind gives an artist something to sell to people who want to be an owner of the digital art and support the artist.

Video Game NFTs: These are different and don't necessarily need to be on the blockchain because (as we've discussed) people will pay for advantage and assets in game regardless. But if you take a game like hearthstone and make your cards NFTs then you give yourself an ownership of your collection that goes beyond the company itself whose game it is. And sure, Blizzard to turn around one day and say "we're turning off the hearthstone servers so it doesn't matter if you have those assets in your wallet because the game doesn't exist anymore" then someone else could make a different game that adds functionality to those same assets you already possess.

So video game assets don't have to be NFTs, we can agree on that. But other kinds of NFTs would simply not exist as products without the authentication of the blockchain to legitimize them. And even in the case of VG NFTs, what does it harm? (And don't say the environment because I'm getting tired of fielding that one)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Do you expect these currencies to surpass the energy hungry ones in value?

Yes. Maybe not in the USD value of a single token, but certainly in the overall market cap valuation things are trending that direction.

The way it verifies transactions is extremely energy hungry and accomplishes nothing for that energy expenditure other than validating the currency.

The way that some blockchains verify transactions is energy hungry. People are increasingly transitioning towards cryptocurrencies that require significantly less energy to validate.

foolm0r0n posted...

Why do games need Blockchain decentralization? That's the part no one answers with NFTs.

Need is a strong word. Games don't need to utilize blockchain to confirm ownership of digital assets and as we've discussed similar experiences already exist.

But I don't see where it hurts either. If all your assets are tied to your Ubisoft Account then Ubisoft being hacked could result in a loss of assets. If all your assets for the same game are in a crypto wallet then short of giving them away yourself they are secure. Yes it still relies on Ubisoft supporting the game that the assets are used for, but that's the same either way. Even if the assets aren't tied to NFTs the game can stop being supported by the company.

wg64Z posted...

NFTs offer 0 good to humanity, and only and solely serve to make rich people richer

Disagree.

But that is also why I went into detail about the different NFT sectors earlier. If someone is trying to make you feel hyped about Generic Colorful Panda PFP project then it's probably because they spent more money than they were comfortable with on them and they want the price to go up so they can unload.

Not to spend the entire time fellating Candy Digital, but Candy has already stopped minting their NFTs on Ethereum and now that they have their own website/platform are minting their new ones on Palm (negligible energy usage). It's something that some companies care about, yes.

And NBA/NFL (via Dapper) mint on Flow which is also negligible.

And new projects are starting to transition towards chains like Solana which is also proof of stake.

I can't wait until "environment" can stop being waved around as the crypto boogeyman -_-

GuessMyUserName posted...

this sort of manufactured scarcity is absolutely horrifying

So physical things are cool because they are unique and rare.

But digital things can also be made to be unique and rare, and that's 'absolutely horrifying'?

Am I describing it wrong? Participation is not mandatory. It's an option for people who want that experience.

.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

That sounds awful to me, Roblox is like that and kids lose their parents rent money like every week.

Not sure how this relates to NFTs. Parents should have safeguards against their children making payments. Kids should be made to understand the concept of currency. And honestly? Kids should not be playing Roblox, it does not seem like a kid-friendly experience.

.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I can already point to games and platforms that do this without crypto. Steam marketplace. MTGO and tix. Roblox. What does the crypto actually do besides provide investment from venture capital?

Crypto adds a veneer of security and finality that a game or company by itself cannot provide.

I agree that similar experiences already exist and seem to function just fine without needed to involve blockchain technology.

But if you are using an environmentally friendly blockchain the argument that you are "doing the same thing, only ruining the environment too" stops holding water.

Bitcoin uses 96 terawatt hours / year
Ethereum uses 26 terawatt hours / year
Tezos uses 0.001 terwatt hours / year

Two of these things require energy consumption on par with entire countries. One of those two is going to be changing (supposedly this year). But there are other options that are equally secure from a verification standpoint with negligible carbon footprint.

.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And the widespread shortage of video cards make literally everything harder on everyone else in every industry that needs a decent video card, be it just casual gaming with a good PC to literally digital artists.

Proof of Stake fixes this.

This is also why as entrenched as Bitcoin is becoming in institutions, it needs to be transitioned away from. BTC will never be PoS, and some of the things BTC did right did a lot of good to advance crypto as a whole, but at some point that needs to be addressed. In either case that is a problem with BTC, not NFT.

.

NFUN posted...

Whatever the media, they're created as a product first, then made into an NFT to inflate the price grossly (which is particularly egregious when it exists already and it's being made into one well after the fact). It's the difference between commissioning artwork or buying a print you found that you like.

Again I'd direct you to Candy Digital. Their MLB Icon NFTs are digital assets created specifically to be used as NFTs. They released 25,000 packs with 3 NFTs per pack of five varying rarities. They combined video clips and graphics and sound effects to create a pretty slick looking NFT and the high rarities were more detailed with additional features. That is miles beyond the Topps approach of "take the picture of our baseball card and make an NFT of the same static image that we print on the cards".

Candy also did a run of "Suite Futures - Football" NFTs last year where they selected 22 up and coming college football players and did a release of NFTs for them. These NFTs were not as elaborate as the MLB ones described above, but were still more than just a static image. Now that college football players are allowed to monetize from and benefit from their likeness, this was a positive thing for those 22 players.

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Ok but the history of WoW gold farming is rife with labor exploitation, right? All the stuff about Chinese gold farms using dirt-cheap labor to sell fake money for real money, which causes inflation in the in-game economy, requiring people to buy more gold. I mean, you're talking about poor and developing countries when you mention "low cost of living," right?

Shouldn't we avoid this?

I feel like maybe I'm not explaining what I'm trying to convey very well.

Let's take a gacha game for example. These games survive by selling in game currency and perks/advantages to whales. Be it in the form of a premium game currency that must be paid for or loot boxes, or whatever else. Games that people enjoy playing attract these whales, and these whales can be the primary source for that games incomes. (Also ad revenue from non paying players, but I'm trying not to split hairs)

Now take that same game, but instead of having a shop where the whales can buy an infinite amount from the developers, you *have* to play the game to earn the premium token and only a finite amount of tokens get generated as time progresses. This allows the other players to either keep their premium currency that they earned for themselves and use it to make their own character stronger and buy their own advantages, or opt to sell to someone else who wants to pay other players for the same advantage that they previously would have been paying the game directly for. The devs will get a small % of each transaction on the marketplace so they aren't cut out altogether, but the bulk of the purchase goes to the person selling. Axie takes 4.25% for example, so if you sold $500 worth of their premium token you'd get to keep $477.50.

I don't pretend to speak for everyone, but to me this feels like an improvement. Now the people who are playing have the option to profit on their time playing. If someone can make $750 a month playing a game then more power to them. And if that's enough to pay their bills then great. Personally I wouldn't be able to quit my job and live on that, but for the people who can then great. It seems better to do that then another more labor intensive job that would pay the same or worse.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

legitimate games

>_>

But seriously, if Ubisoft Quartz is any indication then the major game developers aren't particularly close to that type of implementation where NFT ownership is a core component of the gameplay.

.

Hbthebattle posted...

they don't destroy the environment in the process

I meant to address this part too. But please see what I mentioned earlier about Proof of Stake. We are approaching a milestone where blockchain energy consumption is going to scale way back. We as a society should also be striving for milestones where the energy that powers our cities and our computers does come from coal and oil.

I don't know what will happen with BTC, but ETH is headed in the right direction, and there are already NFTs on other chains that are 99.99% more energy efficient than ETH currently is. I wish people would stop pretending like the environmental aspect to the energy use is some kind of permanent problem that isn't been addressed. Or that the only options are to have the situation exactly as it exists right now or have no cryptocurrencies at all. It isn't a binary issue.

Hbthebattle posted...

This is literally already how Pokemon games work, it's just they don't destroy the environment in the process

No? If you have a pokemon I could breed the same pokemon with the same exact nature and IVs and moves as yours. It would be time consuming and tedious, but it can be done and except for the trainer ID they would be exactly the same.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

yeah but that sucks and the people who enjoy that shouldnt get what they want

everyone should be able to have any charizard, keep this finite specific charizard shit out of games

And no one is going to force anyone to play a game like that. I'm not saying that Pokemon Gen 9 should be like that and fundamentally change the experience for everyone. These are different games with different experiences for different people. That's just what it would be like.

NFUN posted...

the issue with your whole point about collectibles and such is that it's fundamentally significantly less cool to have an obscure digital certificate whose procurement probably comes from somebody impersonally chucking money at somebody than to have an actual rare physical thing,

"less cool" is subjective, and the prevailing sentiment could change over time. There are also ways of presenting digital assets that are more dynamic than the static image that paper cards are limited to.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'impersonally chucking money at somebody". If you buy a pack of NFT highlights you pay for the pack but then you get to open the pack yourself to find out what you got. I could use some clarification on that point.

NFUN posted...

or something that got at least some kind of real attention from somebody important by getting signed

Autographed NFTs already exist. They are typically 1 of 1s where the athlete/celebrity will sign like an iPad or something 30 different times to make 30 distinctly different signatures for the purpose of those signatures being incorporated in unique NFTs.

NFUN posted...

I'm sure that they'll build some sites so that you can feature your truly owned NFTs as badges or whatever,

These also exist. You can link your wallet to digital galleries to view your NFTs in a 3D space or you can get digital frames for your wall if you want to display a physical version of your NFT.

NFUN posted...

I definitely don't see it as something worth championing over the scummy bullshit they are now

There are scummy corners of the NFT space, and they should absolutely be called out as such. Projects get the rug pulled out from under them on a dishearteningly regular basis. That's why I wanted put an emphasis on being cautious and doing research before investing in one project or another.

I don't see how that makes the space as a whole inherently scummy. People make forgeries of Pokemon cards, those illegitimate happenings don't automatically taint the legitimate side of the experience.

NFUN posted...

Like, why does having a virtual pet need to be an NFT instead of just like a generic gacha purchase

Anyone can catch a Charizard in a Pokemon game. How many people can say they have one of only a few hundred Charizards, and they are all subtly different so no one else has their exact Charizard?

That is the distinction. And admittedly that might not be important to everyone, but that doesn't make it less valid for the people who do enjoy that verifiable uniqueness.

Lazy Tiger Wood Cub #7,894 is a lot more likely to disappear someday than an NBA asset.

I understand the concern, but it's not a likely problem for reliable projects/assets, and I imagine there will be some future solutions at some point as well.

That is true. But that's also the sort of problem that will become less common and another reason to stick to trustworthy assets.

Source? My understanding is that the decentralized nature of the blockchain results in secure redundancy.

There isn't a single server somewhere called "Ethereum Mainnet" that could be destroyed and result in a loss of information. It's a shared record across many nodes that hold each other accountable to ensure accuracy.

Unless you're talking about specific sites or NFT marketplace that use custodial wallet accounts? Because that's a different discussion altogether. If you have an asset in a wallet that you have personal, non custodial, ownership of then I don't see how that could simply disappear.

Why make a cardboard collectible that you can make digitally without having to waste the resources in paper and ink and binders and cases and shelves?

Which one of these things is more wasteful?

Proof of Work is garbage and needs to become a thing of the past.

With that said the environmental impact of NFTs will be largely mitigated when Ethereum transitions to Proof of Stake.

Also if we now aggressively transition to cleaner energy sources that will help too. We would be less concerned about energy usage if we had clean electricity to spare.

And in the middle of PFP and Sports you have things like Gaming NFTs and other Art NFTs that vary widely across a spectrum depending on how exactly they are being implemented. If a popular digital artist decides to create a set of NFTs with their artwork it can be a good way for people who enjoy their artwork to support that artist. This provides some level of ownership for the purchaser, and it allows the artist to have a mechanism to get properly compensated for their work. All too often you hear of photographers and artists who see their work being used without their permission or without them being compensated and while that will still happen (obligatory "right click + save lololol") there will be others who will jump at the chance to support something of high quality. It's like how you can watch someone streaming on twitch for free or you can choose to pay $5 to be a subscriber and support the content that you aren't required to pay for.

There are entire games where NFT assets are integral to the functioning of the game. Most well known would be Axie Infinity, which is a strategic pet-battling game similar to pokemon where you have to own the asset of the pet to be able to participate in the game. And once you are playing the game you can earn rewards that can be sold to other players for a profit. In Axie in particular there is a large enough playerbase and demand for game assets that people in countries with a low enough cost of living have been able to actually make a living playing Axie full time. But similar to cryptopunks this is the exception and not the rule. Many other projects simply put "making a game" on their road map to make people believe it's the next Axie when in reality their team doesn't have the technical knowledge required to create something on that scale or have a large enough player base to be self-sustaining. If nobody is playing the game the money for it's economy wont exist. Or if a game has a lot of players, but they are ALL trying to earn+sell their assets there wont be anyone to sell to. It's similar to WoW gold, if nobody is buying the gold the price goes way down.

A promising looking NFT-Game project that is launching this year (beta for their gameplay is coming soon) is Avarik Saga (https://www.avariksaga.com/) which will be a turn-based JRPG style game. Currently there are 8888 characters and to play the game when it launches you will need to own at least 3 to make a party. You will earn in-game currency for owning the NFTs and for playing the game, and the plan is for the currency to be usable to breed the characters so there will eventually be more than the current 8.8K. When the project first released it's initial 8.8k characters (late september) it cost 0.1 ETH each to mint one. They sold out pretty quickly, but as often happens with these projects people who expected to make tens of thousands immediately became unwilling to hold so the price dropped throughout october and november until the floor price for the cheapest available avarik was around 0.015 ETH (only 15% of the original cost). As the game has released more project updates and appears to be getting closer to release the price has rebounded with the cheapest avarik currently being 0.092 ETH, but many of the more rare ones selling for several times that amount.

But for every NFT Game like Avarik, which seems poised to actually deliver a quality product, there are dozens of others that fail to delivery anything. And these are just the small start-up game projects that will utilize blockchain assets as a core component of their gameplay. It sounds like this topic is more talking about the trend of AAA gaming companies trying to shoehorn a digital asset into their game without really understanding the space. For example Ubisoft Quartz, creating an in game skin or item that will function exactly the same for everyone is not something that particularly needs a blockchain asset to verify unique ownership of.

The bottom line is there are simply too many different examples of good and bad implementations to make a sweeping statement about the future of NFTs one way or the other. All you can do is identity the projects that are the good examples and figure out what they are doing right to drive the technology in a positive direction, and steer clear of the vast majority of projects that are little more than FOMO inducing cash grabs. Personally I navigated the space fairly well in 2021 and showed a profit on the year for the NFTs I bought and sold, but it's very easy to lose money if you aren't being cautious.

There is a lot to say about NFTs, and there are a lot of different "sectors" within NFT spaces and they are not remotely created equally.

It stands to reason that if you haven't come to terms with the existence of cryptocurrency in general that you don't belong in the NFT conversation. Before you can even weigh in on NFTs you need a general understanding of crypto.

But assuming you have cleared that very low bar, there are still a lot of different areas with incredibly varying degrees of viability.

In my opinion the least viable NFT sub section on average is the PFP projects. These are the projects that often consist of 10,000 randomly generated Profile Picture images and are themed in some way. Unless you were one of the very first iterations (CryptoPunks) or one of the early "high quality" PFP projects to gain name recognition (Bored Ape Yacht Club) the simple fact is that there cannot possibly be enough demand to drive value to the sheer number of projects that exist. Throw in the fact that 99% of new PFP projects are low quality cash grabs and you have a sector where very few of the projects will every be able to find and sustain traction. These projects tend to profit the few at the cost of the many and generally prey on over eager people who are trying to find the "next" crypto punk and get in on the ground floor. But people are going to keep making them because with next to no investment even a "failure" of a PFP project that has almost no adoption and quickly becomes value-less will net it's creators tens of thousands of dollars. And projects where the entire 10k images get minted can land it's creators hundreds of thousands.

.

And in my opinion the most viable NFT sub section is collectibles, sports in particular. Sports cards, for example are an example of an asset whose value has stood the test of time. It is only the extrinsic value that we apply that causes a sports card to be worth more than the cardboard it's printed on. Whose card is it? When was it made? Was it the first card available for that player? How many of that card are in circulation? These contribute to the value of a sports card. And with the exception of "what condition is it in?" all of the extrinsic value questions for sports cards can be successfully applied to sports NFTs. Not only that, thanks to the blockchain forgery becomes impossible unlike the Pokemon Cards that Logan paul paid 3.5M for which may actually be fake. (still waiting for more information about that emerging story).

Within sports NFTs though, there are several varied examples of them being implemented. You have NBA Top Shot, which creates NFTs out of highlights from NBA games. This is a good use of the digital nature of the blockchain to create a sports asset that's more than just a static image. And sure anyone can look at the same 10 second clip that you "own", but in that same way anyone can pull up the same exact picture of mickey mantle that was used for his baseball card. The series 1 release of Top Shot has held it's value very well and I see no indication that moments from that first set will be losing value any time soon. One thing that Top Shot is not doing as well though (in my opinion) is that they seem to have oversaturated their newest sets. I understand the reasoning that they want to make their marketplace as accessible as possible and $2 is a very attractive entry point to own an NFT, but there really doesn't need to be 60,000 copies of a Bradley Beal layup:
https://nbatopshot.com/listings/p2p/e7b9646c-9997-46c8-909f-2a2b67389023+a6de2694-3f4a-4767-9679-7697b538f6d3

The other thing they do that I'm not overly fond of is gating all the new releases behind "collection score" requirements. Many of the better releases of packs require a high enough collection score which just creates a rich-get-richer aspect to their marketplace. But overall NBA Top Shots is the Official implementation of NBA digital assets and that officialness gives value to these assets.

In contrast you have Topps which badly mismanaged the release of their own sports NFTs. Their NFT drops tended to simply be static images that were identical to the physical cards that they created and their support/communication for those releases has been decidedly poor. Topps got bought out by Fanatics yesterday and Fanatics already has it's own NFT Company (Candy Digital) so it remains to be seen what will happen with the existing MLB Topps NFTs. But I am incredibly bullish on Candy Digital NFTs and have been for some time. They are the future of MLB Digital Assets, they released some Play-of-the-Day NFTs starting with the most recent playoffs (example: https://mlb.candy.com/collectibles/afbc105a-2a07-4a2a-be86-a4da4eaae9e8 ) and released a collection of NFTs that walk the line between being a card and being a video called their MLB Icons set. (example of an Epic: https://mlb.candy.com/collectibles/da59b000-0336-4906-9f3e-12aa21a00b57 and example of a Common https://mlb.candy.com/collectibles/e39dae68-ded5-407d-a1d4-c6d1e8e3adc8 ) Candy's own marketplace for these assets is launching on January 15th and I'm personally very excited for it.

MMXcalibur

I look forward to your short summary and analysis.

red sox 777 posted...

It all depends on if Trump chooses to run.

will his vanity allow him not to?

I suppose he has another year to come up with some kind of face-saving excuse before he would need to start ramping up for primary season.

Got my Shiny Kyurem today

5269 6654 3717

If anyone doesn't have me yet.
I'll go through and add the codes posted so far in a minute

sew what?

I am on Team Surface Pressure.

WDTAB is easily the second best song and it's helped by being an ensemble, but SP just hits so hard.

Someone hears socialism and thinks "oh no, they are going to take MY money and give it to OTHER people".

When in reality it just means they will use EVERYONES money for programs that benefit EVERYONE. Yeah, those who are the most well off will have less need for various social programs, but if you design a robust social safety net then the people who do get lifted up by it will be in a better position to contribute positively to the system moving forward.

Trevor Noah has the experience of a growing up as a black person in South Africa.

Trevor Noah was able to articulate how aspects of that experience can run parallel to the discrimination experienced by black people in the United States.

Trevor Noah has the experience and comprehension of the relevant issues to distinguish between "black americans" and "african americans".

To my knowledge Dave Chapelle is not a transgender person. Nor, to my knowledge, does he have the relevant experience or expertise to provide thoughtful or nuanced comedy regarding transgender people.

.

Tony might have been making a logical leap to get from the post you made about Trevor to connect it to Dave.

And if all you said was "who is talking about Dave? I just saw this thing Trevor said and it made sense to me" fine.

But then your response to his assumption was to dive headlong into the Dave talk anyways, so now I'm less inclined to say "hey Tony, he wasn't even talking about Dave, he just happen to like this thing Trevor said".

Shrug.

No, I'm pretty sure Jeremy Irons is the one who makes the topic on board 8 and Alan Rickman is his brother-in-law.

And people call scarlet 'Red' because scarlet is a shade of red.

But I can see why you would be confused.

#CancelSgtPowell

If a vaccine gets released in a forest and no one is around to take it, does it even really exist?

DoomTheGyarados posted...

That not guilty verdict, although correct, is going to suck for the discourse of this country for awhile.

It would be better if he weren't appearing to be basking in his situation and would at least pretend like he was really broken up by what he was forced to do in the situation he did not belong in.

I'm sure he just reminds them that it was the worst experience in his life and how he hates events that will force him to relive it.

/s

Adam

Short for Adamantoise

Seifer

pjbasis posted...

'
I've heard so many racist/sexists say this

And if they are using someone's race/gender/sexuality/etc to form a pattern then they are doing it wrong and that type of argument should be correctly ridiculed.

But if they are using a single individual's behaviors and actions to form a warranted opinion about that individual....

Lopen posted...

I'm not going to suddenly act like he's wrong when he's right just because Ulti said it.

Being able to recognize when an unreliable source happens to break character and say something correct is a nice skill to have.

But I'm not going to set my watch by the broken clock just because it aligned itself correctly 2 minutes out of 1,440 today.

And when someone consistently proves themselves to be of poor character then I seen no issue with ostracization in cases where reform has proven fruitless. (see: Ulti) There will be other sources willing to provide a 2/1440 level of correctness without the other baggage.

I mean, I'm going to be wearing a mask in public for the foreseeable future, whether the building I'm in requires me to or not. I personally don't consider that to be torture.

But I've received all 3 shots so I'm not going to avoid going anywhere at this point either. Certainly if I'm not feeling well I'll stay home, but if I'm feeling okay I'll go anywhere that's open at this point.

my wife and I did one with Sir Chris and we had a blast.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

It's pretty much already over in the US despite the media's attempts to continue fearmongering with new variants most people are protected from. Places without the silly mask mandates have lower COVID infection rates and few people wear them. I have never worn a mask (at least not after my suicide attempt / panic attack) so it doesn't bother me.

The data shows what the media refuses to. They want control, and people need to tell them to fuck off.

Links and sources please.

SuperJanitor posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/6/7/AANWJZAACsKP.jpg

Why is the iron sitting out?

Is it more likely that the T-Shirt, or the Jeans or the Guitar were ironed to prepare for that pose/picture?

VintageGin posted...

"From what I understand, there are claims of voter fraud, and if that's the case the election deserves to be overturned." Would you agree that's definitely framing the situation in a non-neutral way?

I wouldn't really call this analogous, but I see what you mean.

The original post/article was more along the lines of "can you believe these people were fired over zoom ?!"

And... Yes? Work itself is happening remotely. Many people (myself included) have not worked in an office in a year and a half. Why should disciplinary actions be any less remote than the work itself?

But as i'd read about the terminations prior to reading the topic I thought it deserved to be acknowledged that there was purportedly pretty damning justification. I'm not married to the idea of that justification being real and will gladly accept evidence that it isn't.

I mean, you are defending people pretty hard based upon a lack of complete information.

Maybe we wait to decide if it was warranted?

All we know so far is it has been said "It was warranted because X, Y and Z".

And if that is true, then I would agree.

What else do you want us to say at this point?

Google tells me that the closest Wendy's to my house is currently "open".

I'm not looking at it right now so I'll just have to take that on faith to be true.

I have two and at least one of them works. I tested it a couple months ago. I was considering testing all my NES games to decide if I want to sell them on ebay (they are just taking up space) but so far I haven't been bothered to finish the job.

VintageGin posted...

Ah yes, let's take the word of the CEO

I mean, clearly how i feel about their terminations directly relates to how accurate the reporting is about the information they had gathered about work habits.

IF that information is accurate then it's hard not to view it as fair.

IF that information is not accurate then this has the potential to be a real tragedy.

Punnyz posted...

my phone is charging still >__>

It is my understanding that phones will make calls even while not at 100% charge.

Maybe call an optometrist while you wait for it to charge.

Having an approach of "Let's hear him out and get to the bottom of this, a hate crime may have occurred" is objectively better than "There is no chance this is true because hate crimes don't exist anymore".

The former approach recognizes in due course that this was a fraudulent event.
The latter approach will fail to recognize actual hate crimes when they do occur by being overly willing to assume they are false from the very beginning.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

People who arrived at a correct answer by using an incorrect process and are absolutely unable to see why that's not a good thing.

Tbh I should just recognize the underlined portion and not continue to waste my time.

"You were right. Good job. Here's a gold star."