Scylla Rhiadra

(Hi Angela!) There are, of course, also other reasons for artists to be interested in NFTs. Yes, one can in theory make money from them, but I know that there are artists in RL who are interested in them instead because they are a way of "marking" ownership, and establishing that a digital object is unique. In a world where digital artifacts can be reproduced almost flawlessly and without limit, artists may well simply want to establish that they are the ones who own the "original." In a more subtle way, too, NFTs redress an issue that Walter Benjamin highlighted nearly 80 years ago with regard to mechanical (and now, digital) reproductions, and that is that copies of works of art lose what he calls their "aura" by way of reproduction. So, for instance, we've all of us seen countless reproductions of the Mona Lisa, but this does not stop literally hundreds of thousands of people every year from lining up at the Louvre to see the original. Why? We can probably see and study it better in a good quality reproduction than we would wading through crowds at the museum. But the original has an "aura" that even the most perfect reproduction lacks. NFTs are, perhaps, a way of re-establishing that sense of "specialness" that once adhered to works of art, but that is threatened by digital reproduction. That said, I think NFTs are a bad idea for all kinds of reasons, at least when they are being treated as sort of form of cryptocurrency.

Right, I saw that, above. As Molly says, I see nothing in either the TOS or the Snapshot & Machinima Policy that precludes the exchange of a digital work for money. And, in fact, there are mesh and texture makers who "sell" copies of their work that can, and indeed sometimes must, be downloaded from either in-world (such as a shadow, normal, or spectral map) or, sometimes, from an off-world web site. I suppose it's possible that there is a loophole somewhere that might prohibit NFTs generated from snapshots taken in-world, but it would very much run counter to the overall gist of the licensing information that LL provides.

Maybe I'm missing something . . . quite possibly, in fact . . . but why would the LL Snapshot and Machinima policy not apply here? In terms of snapshots, the only real requirement is permission of the landowner if the covenant specifies that this must be obtained. No permission from anyone else, including avatars in the pic, are required. (It's a bit different from machinima however.)

Lovely composition, and you've got a wonderful looking avatar! I like this! Can I be so bold as to make what I hope you'll take as a friendly suggestion, however, with regards to lighting? A few years ago, @Skell Daggerdelivered a mini-lecture to me here on this thread on the subject and, well . . . it more or less changed my life, reduced my cholesterol levels, and increased my sex drive. I can't promise to do the same for you (Skell is sort of a professional Helping Person, and provided diagrams and stuff, whereas I am merely an annoying busybody), but I do think you've got a good eye, and maybe better lighting might make your pics even better than I think this one already is? This is a very dark picture, which of course obscures some of the lovely detail, but it also means that it's not as dramatic or interesting as it might be if there were more contrast in the lighting. You could, I think, go two ways with this. You could increase the light in the background (using EEP / Windlight, probably), which would produce a kind of cool silhouette effect on your avi, as well as make the pic more dramatic ( @BelindaNis more or less the house expert on nice silhouettes) . . . . . . OR you increase the illumination on your avi. Given that this is, I think, a nighttime picture (?), that's probably the best option? With one or two well placed point lights, you could brighten all or (to my mind, better still) some of your avi. More contrast would make your avatar's attractiveness and interesting look that much more evident, but it would also just add a lot of interest and drama to the pic: your avatar would sort of "pop out" from the frame of the doorway. (You could also lighten the entrance on either side of you a little, but I like it a bit dark, as it frames you really well.) Placing the point lights so that some parts of your avi were still relatively darker would also be cool and dramatic and interesting -- it can also enhance the sense of the image as three dimensional. I don't know if you have point lights (or projector lights)? They are really easy to make yourself, but if you don't have any and can't be bothered making them, give me a shout in-world, and I'd be delighted to send you a free set. ( @Orwaralso has a free projector on the MP: search for him under "creator name" on MP and you'll find it.) So, yeah, sorry, this was a bit wordy, and I hope you don't mind me commenting. But I really like this pic, and how interesting your avatar is, and it would be great to see more pics from you and I hope maybe I've helped a bit but if not feel free to ignore me. Ok, I'll shut up now. 🙂

OMG! Is this your secret, coded way of telling us that Paul really is dead? Excuse me while I play this picture backwards to search for hidden messages . . . !

I know this isn't humorous, and I shouldn't laugh, and really really I am sorry this happened to you. But there is something irresistibly funny about this . . . I'm glad you figured it out, though. 🙂

Great pic, and a good use of infamous (and much maligned) "Dutch angle"!

Well, no. But there is science, on one hand, and . . . well, utter nonsense woven from god knows what, on the other. You are right to say that there are many unknowns here. Science isn't a magic wand that you wave over something to learn "The Truth" -- it's a laborious and painstaking process not merely of testing and experimenting, but of re-testing, and recreating experiments. And whatever results scientist might produced are then tested again, in the crucible of peer reviewed publication. This pandemic is not yet a year and a half old: that science has learned as much about the virus as it has, yet alone produced effective vaccines for it, is nothing short of a miracle. This kind of investigation is usually measured in decades, not months. Those who've criticized health professionals, scientists, and epidemiologists for "changing their minds" about things seem not to understand that that is precisely how knowledge, and particularly scientific knowledge, is produced. You produce a hypothesis, and you test it, and then you test it again, and then someone else tests it . . . and eventually you achieve a stable, provable answer. Changing your mind as you learn new things is actually part of the process. But that there is still much about which we cannot be sure -- and there certainly is -- is not license to simply ignore what we have learned, or to produce wild speculation that owes nothing to proper scientific investigation. The things we do not yet know, or cannot yet be certain exist within the context of things that we do know. Those things, our current certainties, are the foundations for further investigation and research. And if speculation outruns experimentation and testing, and is contrary to what we do know, then . . . yes, you are wrong.

I want to believe that she's just lazy. But posting something from someone who has made a name for himself as an anti-vaxxer advocate (and general all-round nutter) without providing some context -- as though he was merely another medical practitioner with an opinion rather than an activist working hard to sell his view -- is starting to seem disingenuous if not downright dishonest.

Arielle, do you do any investigation of your sources? Or do you just throw in search terms for results you want to see, and then gaily post the first thing that comes up here? Describing this charlatan as "this doctor" is like introducing Bernie Madoff as "this financier." Do you not understand that your continual propensity to dump the most egregiously fatuous stuff here indiscriminately has totally shot your credibility? For god's sake, do a bit of research before posting.

Don't think I haven't noticed, Mandy. PS. When Maddy comes to a club, it's most often because I've TPed her there, so I can attest that she does, in fact, do exactly as she says here. It can be amusing to watch the responses of those she greets thusly. A few know her well enough to get the joke, but the majority, I think, are a bit bewildered. But I'd bet there are a few, too, who are a bit flattered to be thus singled out for attention. And, joke or not, that's actually kind of nice.

What a really lovely pic!

Not being someone who loves "collecting" things, this hadn't occurred to me. Interesting! Of course, commerce in one of a kind, or even just very rare objects needn't rely upon gacha as the mechanism for vending, as your example of the auctions suggests. And I know at least one major clothing maker who makes "special" variants on items in their line available for a limited time only. I still have some problems, ethically and otherwise, with gachas. But I now have a better understanding of the appeal for some, at least.

Well, Sid . . . I think my relative state of dress or undress in-world is really none of your business . . . Yes, you are indeed quite right: most of my clothing is copy but not mod. I stand corrected. Thank your for underlining the ginormeous hole in my wardrobe argument . . . 😏

The workaround for this, surely, would be to deed the objects to a dedicated group to which both lender and borrower belong, and extend mod perms to members of that group. I think this is a great idea in principle? And I am all for finding ways to assist people who may not have cash reserves to draw upon. But I think some of the unintended consequences noted above are an issue. I can't see this ever becoming such a widespread practice that it threatens livelihoods, but certainly the impact upon SL artisans and creators should be given consideration. As for people adjusting perms in response -- well, in the vast majority of cases, I don't buy things now that aren't both mod/copy. I sympathize with the reasoning, but my policy wouldn't change even if more creators went this route.

I'm wondering if he's referring to the "Featured Items" at the top of the list. I do see a fair number of sex toys, poses, etc. appearing there. If that's the case, then turning off "Adult" would indeed fix the problem. These two statements are incompatible. I too would prefer to see less of the sex/bondage stuff on MP. But it's unnecessary to cast value judgements about these products or their users for merely that reason.

There is of course an environmental cost associated with anything we do in SL -- including posting to this forum. But NFTs (and cryptocurrencies) are special cases, and particularly destructive, because of the way that they are produced and "authenticated." Because NFTs are mostly traded using cryptocurrencies, they are implicated also in the costs of producing those.

I've seen this said of NFTs as well.

I'll let you know when it happens.

There are not enough "bones" on the avatar face; that's the biggest problem, I think. The characteristic look of the smile produced by FaceApp always widens and raises the cheeks, among other things. Although there are a couple of sliders for cheeks on the SL avatar skeleton, it's not capable of producing that effect. (I know: I've tried.) It also reshapes the eyes subtly. ETA: And in slightly older versions, it can "whiten" the skin. That particular feature has been removed, for reasons that I'm sure are obvious.

There is a fair amount of statistical evidence to suggest that this Is, in fact, exactly the case. Part of the problem too is that the pandemic has made it much more difficult to get help, find safe shelter, and so on. Many women are essentially trapped in abusive relationships because the old routes to escape have been closed down or are already overburdened.

I don't much "need" the map, in the sense that I don't use it to TP places, find popular spots, and that sort of thing. On the other hand, I've always liked the spatial / geographical element that contiguous continents lend to SL -- and I generally prefer mainland over estates for that reason alone. So, when I go somewhere, especially somewhere "new," I like to know where I am, relative to other places I know, and the maps assist in that obviously. And I use them a lot for scootering around the mainland. So I'm pretty happy this has been fixed. A "thank you" costs nothing. Nor do I merely take for granted that things should be done - - I value the labour and effort and care that people who make things, including code and maps, put into their work. So, honestly, while I'm not much inclined to thank LL the Corporate Entity for fixing something that they broke and that is really a part of their basic service, I do want to extend my thanks and appreciation to the very real humans that did this. Corporations don't need and gain much (other than public relations) from warm thank yous. I prefer to think in terms of people. So to those Lindens who put the work into fixing something that definitely does enhance my enjoyment of this platform -- thank you! (/me checks to see how this post increases her post count and reputation. Damn. Nothing?)

About 2 or 3 cms. of snow on the ground this morning. And it ain't melting yet. It's not that weird here. We've occasionally had snow in May. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

No. I can't believe that seasoned LL staff would. I just worry that their experience is not being consulted.

Except that this is surely why the old executive is still in place? To provide the continuity and experience that would prevent this kind of stupidity? (I don't know why I'm responding to you here, as we're currently talking about this in-world. Bone-headed of me?)