captaincaveman

It's no bigee, don't take it too serious, your still figuring out what you want to do, that's normal. Be pleased you have learnt something, better now than in 10 years! And what you have learnt isn't going to be completely wasted, I'm sure it will help you as a SWE.

I think it will help you get roles, I don't think it actually helps in doing the job, and in my personal experience has a negative correlation with being a good software engineer (not necessarily on skill, more on delivering what's actually needed).

Sounds like there is a story in here, so what happened to I.net?

Reverse racism is like using a regex to solve a problem ... now you have two problems :P

That's a gross simplification I think.

By service, I think you mean company, now I have to trust said company, also I need to check NFT is minted by company I trust, and that I trust the identifier of said company on the NFT. Now if it turns out the company wasn't doing a good job, what happens then, do the NFT's get revoked, by whom, what are the remedies and the compensation process?

All this gets bumped off chain fairly quickly with a hand wave whenever discussed, which quickly puts the block chain solution into question. If the NFT only works when minted and managed by trusted party, then is what we really need is data interoperability rather than blockchain. And even there, NFT's don't actually contain any on-chain or off-chain data expressing what the semantics of the NFT is.

It's certainly a complex mess :)

yeaah I don't think that's a thing.

here you go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama

No, you are not granted copyrights on the image attached to the NFT in all cases I've looked at, spoken to the people behind them and they also agreed.

Doesn't mean this can't be done, but in each case I've looked at, granting of rights (and which specific rights do we even mean?) is not happening.

Further more there is no obligation for anyone to do anything with the image linked to the NFT your the holder of.

I agree in principle I think you could (I'm not a lawyer). However, you run into the starting problem of needing a trusted authority to verify a rights holder is in fact the rights holder. Also if the right is exclusive, how is that managed, i.e. prevent them issuing the same rights to many people. All answers thus far seem to point back to a central authority, and then what's the point of it being on blockchain.

How are you going to get a picture of the Mona Lisa? Take a photo? Your not allowed. The people who own the Mona Lisa, prevent people from taking photos of. They instead they take a photo of it themselves, which is a new creative work and has copyrights. Now they have controlled the market on photos of the Mona Lisa and you need to license photos of it from them.

That's what I heard once anyhow.

Less worried about AGI and all that, more worried that taking away all the 'magic' of how minds work does it take away some of the magic of how the minds work, i.e. it could be quite depressing for many to think of ourselves as 'mechanistic' automatons. Yes that has been discussed for years, but as that becomes fact and with blueprints ... I dunno, I think I quite liked the world how it was before that!

Also the more we can model the minds workings, the more some sod is going to exploit that for commercial benefits i.e. advertising, propaganda etc.

Maybe because its a class of things, you can't visualise 'furniture', but you can visualise instance such as an office chair, or dinning table.

My description is poor, office chair is also a class, but it not the top class ... I dunno read about this once anyway, didn't make it up, honest!

Opensea might be verifying the rights owner has attached their image to an NFT, but that still doesn't mean they have transferred any rights to the holder of the token. Correct me if I'm wrong I've not looked up Opensea's T&C's (have several other's).

Also whenever people talk about ownership in regards to copyright, it's a flag that they probably don't know what they are talking about.

It's better for new people joining, each cycle brings some improvement over the last typically.

It also equalizes the playing field every few years, you become an expert in the latest new thing as there isn't an old guard. Some new web framework comes along, you can invest in that and become leet, where its very difficult to start new in react today and achieve that.

This isn't to say past experience isn't valuable or helps you adopt things more quickly, can make you cynical about the new shiny and sometimes miss out on the actual improvements, even if small. I

This was my experience with rails (to be fair, some years ago). Each new version reinvented some huge chunk of the previous version with magic all the way down. Basically why I stopped using it despite having invested lots of time.

Your not buying the rights, that's the most annoying thing about NFTs, that people don't get.

> There are technical tradeoffs everywhere. But you cannot make a caricature of FP developers, supposedly not willing to spend energy on delivering products.

That is my personal experience, a tiny data point, again where are the studies that give some actual useful guidance?

I wrote a great project using Racket, everyone should use Racket, its cool, lets blog it ... gains momentum, its new its exciting it promises change ... people start to have different experiance, bad decisions are made ... new bandwagon, lets all rush to that yay. Having been around for long enough to see this cycle, I think it's right to ask for some well thought evidence, or gathering of trade offs to help decision making.

But my point is does moving to FP, which is the direction of change, actually bring any benefits to the actual outcome?

My question is simple as that, yet as engineers we get lost in the detail of the doing and some hand wavy suggestion that it makes things better, yet where is the actual evidence for this?

Be pro FP or not, or any other programming paradigm, lets say logic based (prolog etc), where is there any measures on how it benefits outcome.

I appreciate this isn't something that can be easily measured, but that is arguably a key problem with the state of the industry, that its emotion, intuition and bandwagon driven.

Teams have managed to deliver products in also sorts of languages, Cobol for example. Did the choice of language benefit the delivery, maintenance and TCO is my question. If I choose Haskell/Scala over Java (FYI as a programmer I'm not a fan of Java) what benefit will it actually bring the business, and does it out weight the negatives, over what time frame and how much risk?

Having said all that, I probably would be biased towards someone that has Haskell on their CV (doesn't need to be commercial) as it would indicate intellectual curiosity (and probably some capability) in their profession!

That quote is something I had in mind when I wrote that message :)

And your spot on with the C++ reference, but there its more the case the language was adopted in industry then it expanded into intellectual twiddling, Haskell has that as its starting point.

Don't get me wrong I like programming in Haskell, C++ and others, I enjoy going beyond what I need to get the job done and amusing myself in doing things 'clever' ways. But no longer being paid to write the code and having different concerns to manage, its hard to qualify Haskell as a good choice.

>Haskell people skew smarter than most other languages.

But are they more productive, get shit that we care about done, or do they go down monadic rabbit holes?

By all means Haskell away in your pet projects, but having a company invest into a team to deliver things customers want, I'd like to see some evidence this makes sense outside specific niche areas (Cardarno possibly being a good example where it makes sense).

I'll also add that scala/functional engineers are also more likely to focus their energies on monads and type theory rather than product delivery.

I get that it is probably more intellectually stimulating for many engineers than the project they are working on, but it also reflects in over engineering of distributed systems for simple problems. I do wonder if there is really any net gains for a company to go the functional route.

I would love to see some research on this as people have been championing it for decades now, and seems suspiciously absent!

Hmm and there is a lot of discussion about it being a barrier to adoption.

I think it is a good tech choice to be honest, I want my blockchain carefully built and audited.

I have similar opinions on Scala, lots of theory that it makes things better, but the only measurable difference is that its a nightmare to hire for, more expensive and we often have to invest time training people ... who then leave to become contractors.

I'm not anti functional or Scala, but I'm yet to see any reports etc that actually indicate there is a pay off.

mehh feels like we are creating fancy ML brute force crunching machines now

Well its a feature that affects the specific area where your having issues (performance), so yes would be the right thing to start with.

Sounds like they didn't check what had changed first, before starting to fix things with best guesses ... not saying I wouldn't do the same, but arguably lost them a lot of time.

I think in general (sounds like FAANG do, but devs from there tend to bounce around FAANG companies), unintentionally, we have created a generation that don't know how to write a design doc.