Most NFTs do not hash media themselves; instead, they hash a link to the media that only exists as long as it is hosted. I'd imagine the zero hashes are links that are already dead.
Given the authors deleting of tickets on the matter it stands to reason that he didn't want to actually go through the trouble of pulling all images and is kind of being a fraud.
Of course, given enough unreasonably scepticism someone might instead intuit that 18.99 TB of 19TB of data has disappeared.
The soundtrack isn't all orchestral - there's a good amount of diversity in its instruments that are used to serve the story well. I really enjoyed it, apart from the standard-issue Zimmer BWAH accompanying every story beat.
I thought that the soundtrack was the most forgettable part of the movie. It's like they reused half the music from Dunkirk. There's no theme to the film that's stuck in your head after you leave the theater, nothing else special about it. It feels like filler
Source: I have a gaming rig just out of reach of the desired specs.
Given Wine and Proton, Linux gaming is pretty much solved at this point, with the exception of online multiplayer and a few janky late 2000s games. I switched to Ubuntu after Windows 7 went EOL and I've only really seen problems when trying to play online games that require kernel anti-cheat and don't allow modded servers. I'm planning to set up a Windows partition for some basic music production, but I'm unlikely to use it as a daily driver again.
You're being a little unfair here, implicitly describing an entire generation as overly materialistic, mentally ill, socially dependent children. Honestly, it sounds like the Gen Z people you know might just be heavy social media users, since people of any generation that use these tools poorly have the problems you mentioned. For those of us that don't use the standard social media channels, growing up around the internet was an absolute blessing, with some minor flaws compared to the benefits it provided.
For examples of people that have benefited from being in this generation, look at the growing climate movement, or maker culture, which is democratising engineering in a way I don't think has been done before. Mental health isn't as much of a concern in this generation either imo; most people of my generation are far more comfortable talking about depression, anxiety, or autism than anyone else I talk to.
> Honestly, it sounds like the Gen Z people you know might just be heavy social media users, since people of any generation that use these tools poorly have the problems you mentioned.
Quite honestly, who around us isn't a heavy social-media user? I'm Gen Z myself, and social-media is one of those vices where there is no 'healthy' amount to have, like drinking or smoking.
It depends on what you consider social media - I check Twitter and HN a couple of times a day and watch YouTube videos for maybe an hour or so, but I try to be intentional and focus on interesting content rather than mindless doomscrolling, or viewing whatever an algorithm recommends. My friends aren't all the same, and some of them spend more time than they'd like on Reddit, Instagram or Tinder, but actively avoiding social media is a common topic of conversation at least in my social circle. Deleting the apps that want you to use them endlessly (Instagram and Facebook) has caused a noticeable improvement in my mental health, and I'm interested in pushing this further.
To counter your example, the mental benefits of experiencing a good whisky are worth the health detriments imo, but we can agree that chugging down bud light is terrible.
As much as we should be cautious about complicating the problem further, we have roughly 20 years before the cumulative greenhouse effects really take effect. At what point do we stop worrying about what might happen in the far future and focus on what we know will happen within our lifetimes? I get that knock-on effects might cause more problems further down the line, but the impending end of the world seems like a more pressing concern.
This, except for geoengineering. Developing the infrastructure to apply it at planetary scale will take years, and then actually applying it will take trillions of dollars. If by some miracle it turns out to not be necessary, we have plenty of time to cancel it, but now (really, 10 years ago) is the time to start spending 100s of billions of dollars preparing (and 100s of billions reducing emissions, of course).
FWIW, my preferred approach is ocean-powered olivine weathering, as in Project Vesta. But we'll need multiple approaches.
"but the impending end of the world seems like a more pressing concern". While climate change may lead to a mass extinction event that will likely wipe out a lot of species, including our own, it will not likely lead to the end of the world. Isn't it the short term thinking you are advocating here that lead us into this situation to begin with?
Planet Earth will continue to exist and the natural world may eventually recover, but a manmade extinction event and the possible extinction of human life is a good enough definition of "the end of the world" for me, though perhaps I should have said "the end of the human world". I agree that it's not worth fixing climate change at the expense of the future, but the situation is bad enough that fixing it is worth some level of risk - we had the time for a methodical, considered approach to climate change when we found out about it decades ago, and we didn't do anything.
I also think the decision to accept some long-term risks to alleviate the (frankly terrifying) short/medium-term dangers we face is very different to the decision to exploit natural resources in service of the industrial revolution.
