fmaa
7d ago
Of course it makes sense from the spider's POV, but the final part of the conflict is from Holsten's, and his internal monologue is about rejecting his brutish human nature and meekly accepting his new spider overlords instead of going down swinging at a time where they don't know anything about the spider's plans, just that they boarding the ship and injecting everyone with something making people catatonic.
Like, I enjoy his sci-fi worldbuilding and nonhumans, but I would consider his books extremely obvious in their politics, especially because he has real trouble writing compelling villains that don't come across as political pointscoring. Though Chlidren of Time isn't nearly the worst at this, except the embarrassing opening NUN cameo.
fmaa
17d ago
I would suspect that they're not mixing up spellings, but are just unaware that it's a separate word instead of a weird way to pronounce risky to make it euphemistic.
fmaa
17d ago
They are natural errors to make if you learn english mostly by reading, so are a strong sign of a non-native speaker. English spelling is unusually arbitrary and it's very easy to read those pairs as homophones. And otoh mixing up there and they're is a nonsensical error to make if you learned by reading, so are a sign of a native speaker. See also could of.
An NFT ticket gives an unforgeable token, but this token only means anything as long as venues accept it, which they'll contract out to ticketmaster anyway, and they can revoke any access rights from a token as easily as if it was in their database.
NFT house ownership is a great example of something only useful for weird speculation. Otherwise, property rights only mean anything at all if enforced by violence, generally a state monopoly. But if you trust the state to respect that right, the state can just as well maintain the database. If you don't, the token being secure doesn't make the house any more secure.
Not that an NFT house deed is very secure, since by their nature they're bearer deeds. Which might be a useful concept to have for various legal purposes, but I don't think most people would be very comfortable with their house ownership being susceptible to burglary or 5$ wrench password cracking, since to the extent that they function as NFTs, transactions made under duress should be irreversible by courts.
More options
Context Copy link