Calling Cards of Morons

[Derry Alli]

On 30/11/2021 at 16:55, glenrothes 1884 saint said:

Hardly a deviant,sent photos to a WhatsApp group of him humping an of age girl,we’ve all done that ,right?

No, we haven't all slept with a sixteen year old girl - taken photos of it - and then sent them to WhatsApp. You absolute nonce wrong 'un.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

9 hours ago, Muggy Bonehead said:

‘Jie’ is just an older pronunciation of the letter that is extinct in England but still current in (parts of) Scotland.

The Oxford English Dictionary (1st edition) states: "The name of the letter, now jay, was formerly jy, rhyming with I, and corresponding to French ji; this is still common in Scotland and elsewhere."

 I like it. It’s distinctively Scottish, is rich and satisfying to say, and (evidently) annoys some people, so what’s not to like?

I implore to you reject the milquetoast pronunciation ‘jay’ and discover the joys of ‘jie’

See you all in three years for my third P & B post.

If that’s the quality of your posts, don’t bother.

[Cosmic Joe]

Where do we stand on the pronunciation of scallop and waffle? 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

Just now, Cosmic Joe said:

Where do we stand on the pronunciation of scallop and waffle? 

Scaloop and wafflé.

Obvs.

[johnnydun]

2 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

Where do we stand on the pronunciation of scallop and waffle? 

Skolip and wofill 

[Hedgecutter]

Woff-lay

 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

22 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Woff-lay

 

Kens.

[welshbairn]

15 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:

Firstly, there's far more to NFTs than simple .jpgs. It's not science fiction to think that the deed to your house will one day be an NFT rather than stored on a bit of paper in an Edinburgh building.

Secondly, there are people who have become millionaires from trading NFTs, I doubt they're all morons. It's like trading in any market, coming to a conclusion about something's value to you or how much value someone else will put on it in the future. What's the resale value of the art in your house?

NFTs have zero intrinsic worth beyond what speculators think other mugs will fork out for them, because of the hype, and only the hype. A house can go up and down in price but it will never be worthless. Even a painting will always be worth something for its frame.

Edited December 2, 2021 by welshbairn

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

NFTs have zero intrinsic worth beyond what speculators think other mugs will fork out for them, because of the hype, and only the hype. A house can go up and down in price but it will never be worthless. Even a painting will always be worth something for its frame.

"Good news at last, Vincent, there's a bloke who'll give you 50 centimes for the frame. Vincent...Vincent....?!"

[DiegoDiego]

NFTs have zero intrinsic worth beyond what speculators think other mugs will fork out for them, because of the hype, and only the hype. A house can go up and down in price but it will never be worthless. Even a painting will always be worth something for its frame.

I don't really see your point. Everything is only worth what value humans put on it. Even the frame of that painting is only worth what someone will pay for it.

[Ken Fitlike]

On 30/11/2021 at 18:22, johnnydun said:

Along with those that pronounce the tenth letter as 'Jai'.

I first heard that at a League Cup match at Hampden… Dundee v Celtic. Ian / Iain and Jocky announced as ‘Aye Scott and Jai Scott’  

[Rod1877]

1 hour ago, DiegoDiego said:

 

 

I don't really see your point. Everything is only worth what value humans put on it. Even the frame of that painting is only worth what someone will pay for it.

 

Surely the point is that it has utility, admittedly not much in the example of a frame.  The ultimate value of a house is not in the deed stored in Edinburgh but in the house itself.  Why would humans place any value on a .jpg of Alexi Lalas?

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

Surely the point is that it has utility, admittedly not much in the example of a frame.  The ultimate value of a house is not in the deed stored in Edinburgh but in the house itself.  Why would humans place any value on a .jpg of Alexi Lalas?

Why would humans place any value on baseball cards? Some of them have gone for over $3M. They don't have any utility or use, other than showing someone else who is into baseball cards. This is just a digital baseball card, essentially. 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by The Moonster

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Why would humans place any value on baseball cards? Some of them have gone for over $3M. They don't have any utility or use, other than showing someone else who is into baseball cards. This is just a digital baseball card, essentially. 

While that it is also mental, the buyer is getting an item that's hard to find for whatever reason (age, condition, scarcity, whatever). It's daft as f**k, but an example of the human desire for needful things. People are prepared to pay stupid money because they like it and really, really, REALLY want it.

NFTs are none of those things; easily to reproduce and normally copies of something that was, and continues to be, entirely public domain, with no other benefits to ownership. They're bought by people who have no desire to "own" this nebulous thing, just to hopefully make more money from it some ways down the line. Similar to high-end art, only that the people who buy that stuff still do have the original copy of an acclaimed work by a renowned artist, even if it means nothing to them other than a financial investment.

They're probably the logical progression of the modern art world, with people buying low-effort dross that nobody actually appreciates, other than that it's produced by the "right" people, and everyone in that close-knit world has decided it's valuable as a result. Rich w****r shit, in other words.

[Rod1877]

6 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Why would humans place any value on baseball cards? Some of them have gone for over $3M. They don't have any utility or use, other than showing someone else who is into baseball cards. This is just a digital baseball card, essentially. 

 

I'm not sure!  I suppose that there might be some value in the rarity/uniqueness of a physical card.  In any case, I wasn't really disputing that there is a market for these things, just questioning the comparison made to the deeds of a house.

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, BFTD said:

While that it is also mental, the buyer is getting an item that's hard to find for whatever reason (age, condition, scarcity, whatever). It's daft as f**k, but an example of the human desire for needful things. People are prepared to pay stupid money because they like it and really, really, REALLY want it.

NFTs are none of those things; easily to reproduce and normally copies of something that was, and continues to be, entirely public domain, with no other benefits to ownership. They're bought by people who have no desire to "own" this nebulous thing, just to hopefully make more money from it some ways down the line. Similar to high-end art, only that the people who buy that stuff still do have the original copy of an acclaimed work by a renowned artist, even if it means nothing to them other than a financial investment.

They're probably the logical progression of the modern art world, with people buying low-effort dross that nobody actually appreciates, other than that it's produced by the "right" people, and everyone in that close-knit world has decided it's valuable as a result. Rich w****r shit, in other words.

I think I have to disagree with your art comparisons. The ownership of art objects and all the fetishism does have a genuine customer base of mostly rich wankers who do actually genuinely covet and collect that stuff, whether or not there's an 'Emperor's New Clothes' thing going on.

I reckon this is different from NFTs. I don't think anybody actually genuinely does want to own the NFT tagged to some random digital object, but the perception that those hypothetical mug punters do actually exist drives the massive push to adopt these things. I reckon absolutely everyone in the NFT game knows the whole thing is worthless planet-raping nonsense, but they aim to offload their stocks of meaningless bit patterns onto the supposed people who genuinely desire NFT tokens before the penny drops, everyone realises it's an idiotic game and they're left holding a big bag full of expensive nothing. It's grifters grifting grifters all the way down.

The best case scenario is that the Big NFT crash happens sooner rather than later, before this shit leeches into more worthwhile parts of the internet. My worry is that this seeps out into, say, the video games industry and the digital games storefronts turn into a toxic shitscape of NFT-based pay-to-win garbage.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Aim Here

[The Moonster]

11 minutes ago, BFTD said:

While that it is also mental, the buyer is getting an item that's hard to find for whatever reason (age, condition, scarcity, whatever). It's daft as f**k, but an example of the human desire for needful things. People are prepared to pay stupid money because they like it and really, really, REALLY want it.

NFTs are none of those things; easily to reproduce and normally copies of something that was, and continues to be, entirely public domain, with no other benefits to ownership. They're bought by people who have no desire to "own" this nebulous thing, just to hopefully make more money from it some ways down the line. Similar to high-end art, only that the people who buy that stuff still do have the original copy of an acclaimed work by a renowned artist, even if it means nothing to them other than a financial investment.

They're probably the logical progression of the modern art world, with people buying low-effort dross that nobody actually appreciates, other than that it's produced by the "right" people, and everyone in that close-knit world has decided it's valuable as a result. Rich w****r shit, in other words.

 

6 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

I'm not sure!  I suppose that there might be some value in the rarity/uniqueness of a physical card.  In any case, I wasn't really disputing that there is a market for these things, just questioning the comparison made to the deeds of a house.

I don't know anything in great detail about NFTs, but are they easy to reproduce? I thought the whole point of them was that you couldn't do that but if folk are buying pictures that you can freely search for/save on the internet/make yourself then I'll back down from this defence.

[BFTD]

Yeah, obviously there are a lot of well-off folk who buy art because they appreciate it; I didn't mean that they're all just hard-nosed investors. But there are also a lot who gobble it up purely for financial purposes, and spend substantial sums on keeping it locked away in climate-controlled vaults, seen by nobody. NFTs should appeal to those folks a lot, as it'll save them all that money and effort in storage.

They're literally selling Tweets, Moonster. Like, a digital copy of text that somebody wrote on a website, that's still available for all to see. Div could dig out Chigsy's classic P&B post and make a fortune "selling" it to somebody. And I bet he still wouldn't drop the adverts on here.

[Rod1877]

8 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

 

I don't know anything in great detail about NFTs, but are they easy to reproduce? I thought the whole point of them was that you couldn't do that but if folk are buying pictures that you can freely search for/save on the internet/make yourself then I'll back down from this defence.

I claim no expertise either but as far as I can get my head around it, the NFT represents the ownership of the digital file (image, video, music, whatever).  So, the NFT can't be reproduced, but the file that it represents can be reproduced and crucially, in contrast to the physical art world, the reproduction will be identical to the original.  So, you have people selling NFTs for vast sums for digital images or videos that are freely available via a google search.  So I might own the digital id of the .jpg of Alexi Lalas but anyone else can also freely enjoy the picture in all its glory.  

While a market undoubtedly exists at present, it's difficult to understand the value case underpinning the market.

[Aim Here]

11 minutes ago, Rod1877 said:

I claim no expertise either but as far as I can get my head around it, the NFT represents the ownership of the digital file (image, video, music, whatever). 

I think you have to clarify that you don't 'own' the file in any legal sense. The concept of ownership here is entirely vacuous. The owner of, say, Van Gogh's Sunflowers or Picasso's Guernica actually owns a physical object that is the artwork. The "owner" of Led Zeppelin's 'Stairway to Heaven' or Tarantino's 'Pulp Fiction' holds the copyright - the rights to decide who is allowed to copy the work and on what terms, as allowed for in copyright law.

The 'owner' of an NFT associated with an artwork has possession of a big, secret number that nobody else knows, and has only some vague supposed association with the artwork in question. The NFT-owner has literally no rights relating to this artwork that aren't already enjoyed by everyone else.

About the only case for the value of these things is that by paying a lot of money for one of them, you are demonstrating your ability to casually piss money away, which may impress your social circle, if you happen to inhabit a circle of overly-monied morons.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Aim Here