I'm having the same issue, there's also other people on Reddit talking about this.

I suspect it may be a configuration issue because it seems that openai is a customer of arkoselabs, but who knows...

My grandma used to say that and added "que lo demás, todo se arregla" (that everything else can be fixed).

I'm not from Spain but from a Spanish speaking country

What I dont understand is what stops you from minting the same thing on multiple NFT blockchains and why is it any diferent than something centralized, and thats why I dont like all the NFT hype

(I may be dumb and dont get what NFTs really are)

There is nothing that stops you from making the same NFT on multiple blockchains. Even within the same blockchain there is nothing that stops you from creating a new NFT with the same NFT payload. NFTs are only unique in the same blockchain within the same smart contract. Which is a very narrow definition of unique.

You've understood perfectly well. The confusion stems from thinking others have the same level of understanding.

Yeah I’m confused about this as well. Especially since tons of NFTs are images, couldn’t you just change 1 pixel to change the hash and make a new NFT?

What's stopping you from taking a picture of a painting and hanging the painting in your house?

There's nothing stopping you, but your print is worthless and the original is valuable.

The fact that the NFTs use the ETH blockchain makes it decentralized. A single authority issuing NFTs would be centralized.

I understand the decentralized nature of the blockchain, but couldnt I mint the same painting on multiple blockchains?

I'm not an expert, but I can see the value on cryptocurrencies and ETH and all the smart contract tech. But I can't see the same value on NFTs, as more than speculation.

I get the difference between different blockchains, but what I can't see is what value I get when I buy an NFT. As I see it I only get the brag rights of "owning" something on some blockchain and the posibility of reselling that right.

But I may be missing something

It takes a particular kind of person to buy an expensive NFT. It's just not for you it sounds like. But yeah, you get the bragging rights and you own the asset through your private key. A lot of the "crypto OGs" own some of the more expensive NFTs like the cryptopunks and they use these assets to show off essentially.

You can't be serious with that link? That entire subreddit was run by one person who clearly had a mental health disorder. I remember that person very well.

edit: I'm not arguing every single point here because a lot of them aren't even relevant anymore, and frankly I just don't care enough to go through them with you. I'm not trying to win an argument. The information is freely available for all to see and people can do their own due diligence

I've also noticed in my case that bluetooth headphones interfere with my laptops wifi, but am not sure why. And the hardware bottleneck makes a lot of sense for me because those headphones didn't interfere when weren't connected to the laptop (the same happens to me with my phone)

Same, except it's the other way around - my wifi interferes with all audio bluetooth devices I've tested. It causes a stutter about once every five seconds that goes away as soon as I disable the wifi.

Fortunately, it only happens when I'm connected to a 2.4ghz network so I was able to fix it by switching to 5ghz - but even with the modem in the hall outside my office, I'm at the extreme limit of 5ghz reception. It really does not travel far.

Same here, Reminded me of a youtube parody "the closed cafe - so exclusive it's closed all day"

I don't define myself as a denier but in the last months I'm more sceptic about all of this. I also live in a coastal city and remember clearly (we also have lots of archive on the internet) how when I was a kid there were lots of news about global warming and the rising of sea level to life changing amounts in few years. More than 20 years have passed and I don't see any of that here, not even minor changes on the coast. I see more problems (here at least) because agrochemicals and deforestation than from global warming.

> when I was a kid there were lots of news about global warming and the rising of sea level to life changing amounts in few years

No.

There was no such news, unless your only source of information were tabloid headlines.

It's a favorite strawman tactic of the deniers to say "20 years ago they told us the world would end before today and it didn't", when in truth nobody credible ever said that.

The truth is that since the near-term impacts of global warming became mainstream science and an international political issue in the late 1980s, the overwhelming majority of actual forecasts have steadily been getting worse, i.e. they were way too conservative at the beginning. Also the discourse has almost always used the "by the end of 21st century" time-frame; nobody credible ever said anything at all about (for example) sea-level rise over a couple of decades. Science is by its nature conservative, at least in official forecasts and predictions, and the political pressure was always greatest on the side of avoiding "alarmism". The result is that we're now already beginning to see real impacts (especially in the arctic) that only a decade ago were still being talked about as "by the end of the 21st century".

Sea-level rise isn't going to be fast... even in the worst case scenarios, it's still one of the global warming impacts that over the short and intermediate term we can most easily "adapt" to, by building dykes, moving people and cities, etc. Even if you turn up the heat, trillions of tons of ice just take a while to melt, and no sane scientist ever said it would happen in decades. Other global warming impacts are likely to cause global civilization bigger headaches in the next couple of decades. But over the longer term, sea-level rise is important because it is relentless, and if the last 15 years show us a trend, then it is only likely that we'll continue to see the scientific consensus lean further and further to, and beyond, the current "worst case" scenarios.

I'm not a crazy conspirationist denier, but saying "no" to what I've experienced in MY life, is a little too much and is really not effective to convince anyone of anything, let alone a conspirationist that would think that you are a judeo-masonic-reptilian.

Nonetheless I'll tell you that my sources of information as kid were the 3 private TV news of my country and later some "science" shows from cable TV.

We can discuss if that was true science or not, but it was what lots of people were exposed to, and those "predictions" didn't happened. If your sources of information are peer reviewed scientific papers, good for you, but that is not what happens to the 99% of the population.

There's plenty of crappy science journalism out there, but odds are you're forgetting all the qualifying statements like "as early as" and "if emissions keep growing at the current rate". If you go check articles from 20 years ago I'd be willing to bet these qualifiers are in most of them.

Many people seem to mentally filter all these qualifying statements entirely.

Well, I've lived on three different continents and during this time always read a wide range of news sources in several different languages, and MY life experience is that what you're saying didn't happen, and I don't believe that the media in any country are all that different. Oh, science reporting is atrocious and the media just love to sensationalize everything, but at the end of the day with respect to global warming what I've seen in the media from all over the world has been consistently downplaying the seriousness of it and including denier opinions "for balance".

I think that you're misremembering, and I'm calling you on it. If you want to insist, then show some evidence. Give us one link to a mainstream news source (from any country) which actually said during the last couple of decades that global sea-levels would rise by "a life-changing amount" by 2021. The Internet archive may help.

I don't think you'd notice a 1.2 inch change in anything over 20 years. Especially something like the ocean, with tides and waves. Source for .06 inches per year: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...

I'm not a climate scientist or anything near, but from skimming the article I understood that the new model estimated worst predictions than previous models. Like you can't talk about "reality" of the future that didn't happened yet. Please correct me if I misunderstood something

I thought they were saying that the most recent actual measurements were worse than any of the models predicted, and simply projecting those trends into the future is also worse than the upper edges of the model upper bounds estimates.

That makes sense but was not what I understood. I may have to re read the article

"Aah! You've found an end of the prototype. This will be the place where you can figure out where Anne might be... However, if you haven't stopped the transactions yet, keep playing :)"

I wont tell where this is to avoid spoilers :)

I found that too. It’s just that there is a lot of detail, eg in the emails etc, that don’t seem to contribute anything to the game, and then you hit this abrupt place where it says “this will tell you where Anne is”, but it doesn’t.

It feels like there should be some other thing to explore somewhere that makes sense of the emails and the cake and the odd tweets.

Google translated article https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...

No.

Source: my SO, who is a nutritionist with a master's degree on vegetarian diets