The decentralised finance club needs to make their core values poster bigger and easier to understand
We’re here in 2023 and they still forget that the core value of “not your keys not your wallet” is the equivalent of putting your cash under your mattress instead of using a bank and the complexity that comes with that is unavoidable.
You can get more people to use a mediocre product/technology by making it easy to use
People will use complex products/technologies if they are useful enough.
But these people can’t make it useful so they keep banging their head against the wall trying to make it more simple.
It is inevitable that they will try the even lazier route of deceiving people into thinking it is simple.
Nitter: https://nitter.net/evanvar/status/1699032296870015232
edit: changed title to reduce keyword matches in lemmy fediverse searches
Web 1.0: You put some contents on the Internet and monotise people who want to read it.
Web 2.0: You put up a public forum and monotise people both contributing content and reading content.
Web 3: Cryptocurrency (the use of the World Wide Web is optional).
Web 3.0 as defined by the author of Web 1.0: Sematic Web: Everything is linked to everything else with an explanation for how they are related. Instead of learning information, we all play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.
I’ve been thinking about this reply for some time now, and while I think you’re being tongue-in-cheek (in which case, good sneer!), I resent this. I reject the noxious characterization of the web and its supposed generations as being defined by their method of monetization and the concept insults and saddens me.
It also doesn’t match the usual way people use phrases like “web 1[.0]” and “web 2[.0]”, which generally boils down to approximately whether a site looks more like it’s Geocities Angelfire academic homepage HTML written in Windows Notepad or like a typical Squarespace Dreamveawer Wordpress Django Drupal Framework de jour fuckness.
Monotise = monetize?
Hmm, odd. I’m already (oh god kill me) old enough to remember when because “semantic web” was a term thrown around even before web2 got to be known as web2 (and this wasn’t even that long ago)
Don’t think I’ve seen the thing of “3.0 as per author” as you mention here, link?
check it out, it’s kind of interesting as a sort of way to treat web technology like a database (and some bits feel surprisingly close to Prolog in semantics, which tracks) but it’s been pretty spectacularly unsuccessful at gaining any real adoption (which gave the cryptobros ample opportunity to hop in and parasitize the term, leading to their also spectacularly unsuccessful version of web 3). see also solid, which is an implementation of a bunch of Semantic Web ideas (and it barely works, and I’m fairly certain I remember seeing a bunch of folks quit the project all at once recently), and note that the web, semantic web, and solid are all Tim Berners-Lee projects
The Semantic Web was TBL’s Xanadu.
my god, it exactly is
@self @froztbyte
“conceived the Solid project … as a way to give individual users full control over the usage of their data”
"Berners-Lee’s research team collaborated with the Qatar Computing Research Institute "
I see a potential problem.
Oic
I hadn’t actually realised it was a stolen term (although in retrospect, uh, that tracks)
At each recurrence of running into shit like this, I’m glad (and optimistic(?)) that the average coiner shitbird tended more greedy than clever, and that that by itself would help self-shorten the period of awful
(There’s still the remainder, of course, and they have to be kept watch on as usual)