Everything will be considered fake unless it is proven authentic.
How do we prove authentic? Same way we prove that a website we visit is authentic.
Every recording made will be signed/hashed and be able to validate of the public key of the recording device (every phone will have a key). White House, News Orgs, etc. all will use cameras with public keys so everyone can validate.
As soon as only one pixel or frequency changes, it will be invalid/fake.
In the end, all will be even more trustworthy than today (there will be some kind of signed/verification label on every video/audio/media that is original/valid).
You know, contracts are just pieces of paper. They can easily be faked. Yet try going on court and say that a contract with your signature is invalid because it could be fake. Your argument will be rejected, because it doesn't matter if it could be faked, it matters if you are alleging that it was faked.
So the same thing should be the standard for video. Someone shows a video of you doing something. Either say under penalty of perjury, that you did not do that, and then the authenticity of the video can be looked into, or the video will be accepted as authentic. You don't get a preemptive "this could be fake, so lets ignore it".
The idea is that the blockchain tracks the date the video was entered onto the blockchain verifiably. Note that this isn't the same as the date the images were taken, but it confirms that the recording is at least X days old.
But then the metadata, e.g. gps coords, time of the recording, etc. of the recorded video will not match with what is displayed. So it would be an obvious fake.
I imagine the guy above is thinking any device can produce a hashed video, but I think we'll need the notion of cryptographically secure cameras or something with write once memory that has to be swapped out once in a while. The alternative being cameras that upload the hash of every clip into a server to provide non repudiation.
No. "Decentralized" means everybody takes accountability, as opposed to just one corporation.
But you have to make use of it - e.g. by using https://nexusmutual.io/.
"everybody takes accountability" and "nobody takes accountability" have the same meaning. Accountability is tightly linked to delegation, and essentially behaves like a normalized variable.
The person who lost the 50 million probably insured his money with something like https://nexusmutual.io/. If you invest a large sum, you should always insure it against hacks.
The only thing riskier than smart contracts would be smart contract insurance products atop smart contracts. I'm sure they only allow for vetted contracts, but the incident discussed in this article was not a contract hack, it was a website hack to change the approve addresses. If that type of thing is going to be covered then it's well beyond smart contract due diligence. That would require evaluating end-to-end op sec practices on an ongoing basis.
For me too. Only thing I sometimes struggle with, is figuring out how to place error catches.
Wrap each async functions body in a try catch? Or always attach a catch handler to the calling function? But what if I forget to do that?
Should the caller or the callee handle the errors or can both?
Does not always work like that. Did people „want“ cars when there were only horses. Or Facebook when there was just email.
Sometimes you build something and only after people realise that they want built thing.
Thats not entirely true. You can't build car, paved roads, load capacity in one go, you got to make the first horse cart without the horse.. and many would object saying horse is literally free, why should i pay for fuel. where would i refuel wheres the horse can feed itself. horse can drive itself if necessary etc..
There is no single formula for success. Sometimes you are too early and you fail. Snake oil startups are getting billion dollar valuations while a legitimate idea may be rotting in another corner of the world. It's a combination of lot of things. Sometimes I feel many of the yc companies are successful not because people are jumping to buy the license, but because they have a network effect and are vetted by a community and perceive it as the better option while it may not be such. Connections, Money, Advices, Talent, Idea, Marketing, Sales, Management - every single thing is part of the puzzle.
Somtimes you are lucky to get the market fit right of the bat, but many times you have to try hard and struggle a lot before you even have a chance to have a glimpse of market fit. In the case of the author of the blog, if he had build a hype around his product like this is the next biggest thing and got a network effect going (your peer doctors are using it) it may have turned out way different. He wouldn't need to charge it initially or have a free plan that is good enough to get them hooked etc. Don't know there are thousands of variations possible. He simply stopped too early IMO.
Yes, they wanted cars before the cars got invented. The wanted greater speed, more comfort, less trouble. People didn't care whether it took the shape of a "car" or of a "sdflkjsdkj". As long as the invention satisfied their needs, people were willing to pay for it. This stands true always.
Overall it had no positive spin - so no.
Also there is a difference between "This was nothing to be glad about" and "There was nothing to be glad about".
I thought about changing my slightly verbose react state updates to immerjs but your lib looks even simpler.
I dont think it can be simplified any further, really great, thank you.
The people who are in a position to remove it aren't the ones who said it's like handing a loaded weapon to a 4-year-old, so they don't have the reason to remove it that the question was referring to.
They have a more nuanced view and are quoted in the article saying that they're looking into how to modify the interface to "encourage more consideration before spread".
These machines will only help readers after the article is finished. chrismealy however was asking for a machine helping the writer while the article is in writing.
But I also think the question was meant a little sarcastic.
How do we prove authentic? Same way we prove that a website we visit is authentic. Every recording made will be signed/hashed and be able to validate of the public key of the recording device (every phone will have a key). White House, News Orgs, etc. all will use cameras with public keys so everyone can validate. As soon as only one pixel or frequency changes, it will be invalid/fake.
In the end, all will be even more trustworthy than today (there will be some kind of signed/verification label on every video/audio/media that is original/valid).