i originally thought similar. but the better answer is that crypto is innovation on access and settlement, and it lies to itself about being innovation on ownership (which is still a social construct).
it really was that easy: https://t.co/sl3qqBHqiH
no difference between llm-invocation and spell-magic. incantation: "linocut-inspired dreamscapes and rich, textured oil paintings defined by thick, expressive brushstrokes"
A bunch of people were asking how I made the effect for the "renderaissance" style page I made previously.
Here's a full walkthrough of creating that depth / dynamic lighting effect for the web.
Interactive version: https://t.co/CdEXq46TXS
We agree here, and they have the luxury of having the time to do these kinds of activities that benefit themselves. But I mostly object to using the distribution of wealth as “proof” the way is closed for most. The lopsided distribution is expected to some extent.
I honestly find it hard to tell if the gamification is a cause or result of this supposed hopelessness. If you’re constantly pissing away your savings on negative expectancy bets, of course you’re going to feel like that single lotto payout is the only way out. There’s also the impact of social media redefining what “enough” is, further pushing people towards the kind of behavior that drains the capital they need to actually change their life.
https://t.co/xKUW4iMtHo
old article, but relevant. every market cycle we get new companies built on the "banks are dinosaurs, we're different, our subprime model uses <insert current buzzword>!!". the banks are still here, those companies are not. but maybe THIS time it's different ;).
All Kevin is saying is that a manager that puts up a 30% vs 20% gross year over year is a better manager. Just because the former charges higher fees doesn’t change that.
Continuing this dumb analogy, he’s saying the smoke shows are looksmaxxing way harder, and that’s true regardless of what you get later on in bed.