I mean, it kind of does, though, no? Since it is backing the contract in the first place? Why else would anyone buy those contracts if they didn't know they have value provided by onionfutures.com in the first place? Why can't I just sell a fake key, claim it'll work, and make unlimited money this way if that wasn't the case?
The specific laws do not actually ban the transfer of those contracts (tbf this is very complex and depends on your reading). And yes they do not facilitate the trading of the instruments in the secondary market but they absolutely facilitate the instruments themselves otherwise there cannot be a secondary market without any backers of the instruments.
I think with the desert thing, you are getting at what was once described as "aura" of original art work. Things like photography have already made us question things like synthetic art and how it relates to "real art" and I am pretty sure this is how it will go with AI and art in general. I wrote about this in my full human only blog: https://decodingvibes.com/blog/3-hypothetical-paintings-and-...
Wait wait wait, why will humand syop wanting to read, listen to music, or watch movies and tv shows just because there are AI generated art? People will still feel the need for all those things, technology alone cannot erase the demand. The problem is generated art is not considered good by audiences because it usually lacks substance and genuine creativity. But that doesn't mean they will not want to watch The Odessy. If an AI can make a movie which is exactly equivalent to a Christopher Nolan movie, then yes people can adapt. But the current situation is that most AI art sucks and people do not like it. Not that people want to stop reading, listening or watching. We are doing that in much larger numbers than we ever did in history.
People have lessened what they read because they can more easily watch a video or listen to a podcast. It’s not like the 1800s where books were the only game in town. And why read an AI written article when you can listen to the AI generated podcast with banter between two fake personalities (yes, this is what I heard when I wanted info about qwen’s newest model on Apple podcast).
Why is the headline written in a magical realism style in an article about the analysis of the apple tree? "Solved mystery of ancient tree"? "Rewrote the history of fruit"? Like okay, it's cool but it's not Game of Thrones
An excuse to say "apple detectives"? Choice of words drew me in, and I'm happy it did. This is quirky news; it's making a bit of geekery interesting to distracted geeks, like me.
The subject is interesting and I am not doubting that. The story is interesting as well.
But the headline is just weird, especially for an outlet like that. Why do we need to resort to goofy theatrics to attract people to science (interesting in itself) is the problem I have. Same reason why I detest people who genuinely think Kip Thorne's most famous work is Interstellar.
There's definitely something to be said about not trying to spin stories into something more. And, I'm usually on the other side of the barricade in these discussions. But, when I'm reading about apples, it's me being goofy, so it's nice when the author is tailoring for that. I would absolutely hate it if the same was done when writing about something I care about in a "real" way, for the lack of a better term.
Yes just how Google was aligned with the interests of the Earth and the human race when it was supposed to "do no evil". If it follows it makers, ofc it wouldn't outright say it will destroy humanity lol.
I mean, it's the opposite of that; it's forced illiquidity when people lose access to their keys. There is no way to gain access to those coins and you cannot "force" liquidity on the bitcoin protocol.
Yes the point is that they wouldn't have to adjust unless they are merged into one. Precisely because one size can't fit all, yet they insit on one size now.
reply