Years ago, I was brought on as tech advisor to a company building out something along these lines (social engagement, not “watching movies,” but still.) These efforts usually just burn money until investor patience runs out, because engagement arbitrage is hard and competitive.
Underneath all the hand waving it’s an attempt to create an economy: users do a thing to get tokens, which they can use to buy a thing, and advertisers pay you a premium to fund the tokens in exchange for highly instrumented access to the users.
The question is always, ultimately, “what premium do you have to charge over ‘normal’ advertising and thing-obtaining costs to make your role in this economy profitable? Do you deliver enough value to both parties that they will bother using you as a middleman?
Or, of course, you could just ask credulous investors for piles of money and run it at a loss until you figure out your next gig. That’s actually way simpler.
In the case of the company I was advising it took days of wildly sketching whiteboard diagrams and walking them through their own spreadsheets to get them to accept that they were, under all the movement, losing money selling people donated products at *above* retail.
And honestly that is impressive
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Reading the appendix of 1984, Orwell's in-universe essay on the history of Newspeak is interesting and illuminating. In particular, it reveals the misunderstandings inherent in reactionary objections to "academic" language as Newspeak.
What I mean is that we often find reactionaries objecting to unfamiliar language (say, pronouns, or "something-something-Americans", or nuanced definitions of the word 'racism') and saying that it's "Orwellian Newspeak."
But that misunderstands quite a bit: both the purpose of specialist/academic language, the way meaning is added to language when words develop new uses, and what the *nature* of Newspeak was in 1984.
@SethCotlar A digital pointer that holds information about an asset that exists somewhere else, and whose “ownership” is tracked by a big network of other computers.
@SethCotlar That’s the technical part; the complexity and stupidity is in what happens based on that, and the unfounded assumptions that get layered on top of the technical baseline.
@SethCotlar Like: Some people pay money to other people to get them to announce a “transfer of ownership” for a given token on that big network… and assume that means they own the thing the token “points” at. It’s a bit like “owning” the bit.ly link to a NYT article.
So, a cryptocurrency business was rolled for $30m. Thing is, it wasn't "hacked;" Someone just found an edge case in the code that defines the 'smart contract' inherent to the business model, and used it to "trade" a few Mono tokens for millions of dollars, draining their funds.
What I find interesting is that it illustrates the dangers of an article of faith in cryptocurrency: "there is no law but the contract, and that is good because the contract is unambiguous, executable code."
One of the more nuanced breakdowns of Bari Weiss' career arc, from John Ganz' The Political Economy of Reaction. johnganz.substack.com/p/the-politica…
Reminds me of a side conversation we had with @danieleharper and @_Jack_Graham_ on @idsgpod, in reference to Weiss' membership in the ~Heterodox Opinion Havers Society~. Ganz compares Bari and her fellow-travelers to the losers of 18th c Paris' crumbling linterary class.
I don't know enough about the history of the era to assess Ganz' comparison in detail, but I think there's something to be said for the theory that ostensibly diverse figures like GG, Tucker, Bari, and others desire both radical chic AND establishment security.
It's impressive how densely packed these two tweets are with the language and social cues of abusive Christian fundamentalism.
For those who don't recognize them, Moore here is obliquely responding to the "exvangelical" movement that's been blossoming over the past few years.
I can't say whether the movement is *numerically* significant or not, but it's certainly had a social and cultural impact: people, many of whom experienced religious abuse and trauma in authoritarian spiritual communities, are leaving *and talking about why*.
This has thrown certain fundamentalist systems of control into a tailspin, like a referees trying to give someone a penalty because they quit the game. Matt's opening statement acknowledging "bad experiences" is a weak concession to keep potential exvangelicals on the field.
This afternoon's system-design ramble is brought to you by LEGO Part Number 41530: "Propeller 8-Blade, 5 Diameter."
I've talked before about the ways the LEGO building system demos important qualities of consistent, flexible, growing systems. One of the most important ways it "keeps its promises to itself" is ensuring pieces use recurring magic numbers for their measurements and proportions.
Those magic numbers become critical when pieces connect to each other; rods fit, heights of stacked bricks match, etc. Even if pieces weren't explicitly designed to work with each other, their interactions with the *system* of measurements and connections does the heavy lifting.