password1

This is a great point, makes me wonder if there is a market for such a service.

Can you point me to where this insightful discussion happens? And where can I educate myself? 99,99% of content and forums I find online about crypto only care about promoting coins, nfts or services basing only on futuristic visionary promises, hyping up the users and attempts at FOMO. It's almost literal spam. This is the first time I read something that just explains how thing works from a technical standpoint and what challenges are there.

I keep reading that there are a ton better blockchains than eth, but then it seems that all dapps continue to use just eth, even at the cost of insane gas fees. Why is that?

> Blockchain-as-a-Service tools

You mean something like AWS, but that allows me to quickly setup an server containing a node?

That only covers backlinks and authority, it's just one piece of the puzzle. Ironically, that's called a "black-hat" way of obtaining backlinks and authority. The "white-hat" way is to go to legit websites and purchase links, literally pay them to link your website. This is a great example of what's considered "ethical" in SEO

A while back (two years?). The thing is, user were extremely satisfied by the product. The users came to the website for a comparison table (which was at the top), used the information, clicked a link on the table and then exited the website. The rest of the page was useless, most won't even scroll. But still they needed it for a ton of SEO reasons (keyword density, semantic structure and complexity, internal and external linking). The company was working on an extremely competitive niche and it was crushing it (multi-million dollar ad revenue), so I think they knew what were doing.

I think it would get reported by your competitors and then blacklisted/penalized after manual review.

It's SEO. Once a SEO expert was showing me user heatmaps on his popular website's articles. The users completely ignored 90% of the content and of the text of a page. I asked him why so many parts of the text were ignored by the users and his answer was "oh, that text is not for the users, it's for google". The literally paid writers to write articles way longer than needed solely to satisfy Google algorithms. The worst part is that it worked and they earned a lot of money from it.

I don't agree with 2. If you look at any great work of art in movies or videogames it's easy to pin-point to one or just a few people that heavily influenced specific creative aspects of the final product. For a character to be memorable enough that a corporation decides to invest to make it a flagship one, you can rest assured there will be some great mind behind it that influenced it heavily to make it stand out in the crowd.

If you were to take an committee of execs/businesspeople and make them create the "perfect MCU character" it would be either a copycat of something existing, or something so bland and safe that fans would forget in one second. That's why they still hire screenwriters and directors.

I would also argue that tasking a team of creatives of coming up with a brand new superhero that: 1) fits the "MCU style" 2) it's safe and family friendly 3) is original enough to stand out 4) is likable 5) fits the current zeitgeist without feeling like a PR stunt. - would be an extremely daunting task for even the most experienced creative team. They might manage to do it and create a new flagship character for the MCU owned entirely by Disney, but it wouldn't be a "corporate character" and the real authors' influences and creativity would be extremely apparent in the character.

Why would the children need to inherit the copyright? They can inherit the money that the parent earned, the companies he founded, the merchandise and brands he created with the IP. Imagine inheriting the Star Wars brand without the exclusive copyright, it would still be worth billions. They can inherit a LOT even without having the copyrights.

I'm sure that fans will actually love to argue endlessly if "Netflix Star Wars Universe" or "Disney Star Wars Universe" is the "true Star Wars", dissecting each one trying to find which one adheres to the original canon and author's vision.

That's true, but I think those are just two different markets. I'm more than happy if Disney continues to make whitewashed family friendly movies for people to unwind in the evening. But I would also want other companies to make other kinds of contents with the same IP, targeting different people with different expectations.

On the digital world we are all about finding unique niches and unique needs, but in media we are mostly stuck with "the big studio that makes the thing that appeals to most people as possible". That's ok, but it's only one way of approaching the market and the audiences. It would be nice if other people would be able to test other things also using the same worlds and characters if they wish so.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies didn't in any way damaged or removed anything from Pride and Prejudice though. The book is still there for everyone to enjoy.

The movie was also a commercial failure, I'm not sure we would end up with so much junk if it doesn't sell.

The problem with remakes and adaptations of existing franchises is that they all basically follow the same safe and tested structure. So they are boring and feel all the same because they basically are.

I might argue that this phenomenon is too a byproduct of copyrights. In a world were everyone can create interesting things on any IP, there's no market for cookie-cutter adaptations. People watch cookie-cutter adaptations and remakes because it's the only way to experience the characters and worlds they like. If they had another option they probably just skip the reboot and go watch the new take from a different studio or director.

Sometimes I wonder how many amazing movies, series and videogames we would have if everyone could use popular franchises for their creations (think MCU, Star Wars, LOTR, but also more niche franchises).

Instead we only get the safe and family friendly cookie-cutter versions tuned for mass consumption. Big media corporations want to play it safe to ensure profitability, but other creators would be free to experiment in all other sort of narrative and stylistic directions.

I mean, the fact that 1 reputable scientist doesn't approve the vaccine doesn't disqualifies the thousands of reputable scientists that approves it. Scientific consensus is never unanimous.

Reminds me of Miro and Mural, there's surely a market for it.

No, it's not. Nearly all Open Source software has terrible UX/UI with really questionable decisions regarding almost everything besides the technical aspects.

ITT: People complaining that they only hire internally and job posting are a scam AND people complaining that they only hire externally because they have more control.

But didn't the same management also decided to make the company a PBC instead of becoming billionaires by going public? That always felt to me like a signal that the management believed the mission too.

It was so well written that he made me want to play his purposefully frustrating game and I'm still disappointed he didn't provide a link to download it.

> Otherwise, Amazon feels like AliExpress with faster shipping and better English.

It literally is. All these products are cheap stuff that marketers find on aliexpress. They buy them in bulk, stamp a logo on it, import in the US/EU, stock in logistic centers and then sell on Amazon. It's the same stuff, but it comes from an English seller and a warehouse in US/EU.

It's exactly the same thing that Amazon does with its product lines though (like Amazon Basics), so not really rooting for their own name-brands either.

I know that this is tinfoil-hat territory, but isn't the problem of Boeing 737 MAX recent crashes related to software issues? It would be scary. I'm referring to this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-receive-updat...