The first time definitely has a novelty to the experience of getting in the tank, settling, then floating. Then towards the end of the first session you really start to feel comfortable. Second time around you really get the max relaxation. Floating like that really lets your muscles settle in a way that they never have before - usually I carry that relaxation for a week afterwards. I never was much for massage but floating is amazing.
I noticed in reading the reviews/details on many float businesses near me the newer ones emphasized infrared heaters in the pool and above the pool - makes sense - water is pretty hard to change temperature; lots of thermal inertia. Infrared would be a lot more responsive. So I will probably prioritize places that advertise that technology.
You can't buy and sell the same item to yourself at an auction multiple times... Or am I missing the point you're trying to make?
Also, the value is in the art, not the receipt. With NFT, that's not the case... Unless it's an exchangeable NFT, like one you can exchange for a service (e.g. as a tick) or some goods, but that's not really how NFTs are being used.
> You can't buy and sell the same item to yourself at an auction multiple times
You don't have to; you get someone else to buy it, hold onto it for a few years, then sell it again on a different auction. It doesn't have to be short-term.
> Also, the value is in the art, not the receipt.
I would argue the value is not in the art in real life either, that is, it's not the artwork itself, but the 'object', its history, what people have paid for it in the past and how it increased in value over time. The main thing is that it has to be rare or one of a kind.
I mean more understandable is expensive, collectable whiskeys. They make a limited batch, say 100 bottles, sell it for $100 each. Ten years later, 90% of those bottles have been opened and drank, another 10% of the remainder was lost or broken, leaving you with nine bottles of a once-and-never-again rare batch. Collectors will pay more for it.
Anyway, NFT's, like cryptocurrencies, are investment products whose value is determined entirely by whatever a buyer pays for it.
This is actually a really important nuance. NFTs/crypto have a really short turnaround time - which means they can run the scam much quicker and at massive scale.
Though whiskey doesn't age in the bottle making it a weird investment in itself. The ten year old bottle I bought twenty years ago now costs much more to buy it again, is rarer but the whiskey is not better, it forever stays at ten years old once out of the barrel.
It's not completely nonsensical. The new whisky even from the same distillery won't taste quite the same, due to variations in climate and so on. The old and increasingly rare one isn't trivially replaceable, so if has a reputation of being especially good it can gain value. Even more so when the original distillery isn't in business anymore.
On top of that, the popularity of good whisky has increased a lot over the past few decades, and the higher age statements haven't been able to keep up.
Plenty of high-end art investors never move the art from the specialized vault where it was already stored. The only change is a new entry in the public art registry. Seems like the receipt is carrying a lot of the value in that case.
I wasn't aware of this. I guess that's a special way way of appreciating art (assuming the art isn't somehow volatile in "normal" conditions), if it's done out of legitimate interests (i.e. not money laundering)
While that's true, in many ways huge chunks of the fine art market exist purely as objects in warehouses, normally in freeports such as those in Switzerland, that are simply traded back and forth, often never seeing the light of day.
The art market is really weird in many ways. Both the Freakonomics podcast and Malcome Gladwell's Revisionist Histories have done episodes in the last year or so on the market.
It was like this for me until I muted any word that was remotely political. All of a sudden it was like a toxic fog had been lifted and I could see clearly again. The article really undersells the importance of muting words. It changes everything.
Have they removed the 200 muted word limit? Or at least implemented word stemming?
This feature, besides being hidden, always felt unreasonably crippled to me. And they banned third party clients that might be able to implement it better.
I gave up on Twitter as a platform because Twitter Inc. refused to give me enough control over my feed. (This applies to banned accounts as well - I would have liked the ability to judge for myself, rather than have an overworked, outsourced, minimum wage moderator decide for me.)
Replying to myself because maybe there's a startup idea in the above comment: convince one or more of the the big social platforms to let users opt out of default moderation, and "subscribe" to thirdy party moderation. (Moderation-as-a-Service?)
This would open up a market similar to how you can use different spam reputation services with email, or different blocklists with ad filters.
It would also take the wind out of the sails of people blasting the social media companies for over- or under-moderation. Don't like what's being censored? Hire a different set of censors.
Go to https://twitter.com/settings/muted_keywords, you can mute words you don't care about. The feature is a bit hidden in the settings, but the twitter experience is way better once you remove content that makes you angry.
You answered your own question - it's a play for the next generation.
My kids bounce between a multitude of shared digital spaces (games, chat, social, videos etc) and they would be right at home at some kind of metaverse that would bridge them all (if that's even possible).
It's amazing that Marinetti made a cookbook like this almost 100 years ago. It still feels experimental compared to the recipe junk that gets churned out these days. If he were alive today I bet he would make a new Futurist Cookbook of SEO-optimized AI-generated recipes that could never exist, designed to be eaten in a banquet served on an autonomous bus.
"For the extremist banquet, where no one eats, and the only satiety comes from online outrage, the guest may stay at the table only long enough to tweet."
When I did some work on sentiment analysis using tools like Crimson Hexagon, it always felt like the data was skewed since what people post is different from what they say, which itself is different from what they do. Might need to be some kind of corrective filter that includes 'uncounted emotion' as a baseline.
I mean the elephant in the room is that that "sentiment analysis" is flawed and crude and does not correlate in any meaningful way with actually "happiness".
Getty already offers free images through embeddable content as well as brand partnerships, so it's natural for them to want a fresh injection of great work. Especially since their library has been rather stale for so long. It's hard to keep nice pictures coming in when photographers are getting royalty statements of only pennies. Of course, that's still more than Unsplash photographers receive. It will be interesting to see how Getty leverages this new model of 'images as ad network.'
The Unsplash dashboard features the number of image views/downloads very prominently and artists treat it as a kind of cachet. An image with 100,000 views at $2.00 CPM is what, $200? It's strange to me that photographers brag about their view counts when it's plain evidence of how much the company is making off their shadow labor. Credit to the Unsplash team for taking this dissonance to its apex - it really did require a new way of viewing images as assets that hadn't exist before. I'm hopeful that they can bring that kind of thinking to Getty. I'm not that hopeful that any photographer benefits from this new partnership.
In the art world it's a pretty straightforward formula:
-Buy out the estate of a 3rd tier artist who once drank a beer with a famous artist
-Created slick marketing materials written by an art critic who was paid a lot of money to hold their nose
-Place several key pieces up for auction and an accomplice buys them at inflated prices
-Market is cornered, established prices are high, nothing left to do but sell to buyers who are too lazy to form a critical opinion and who instead rely on the manufactured signals from steps 1, 2 and 3.
-Once all the best pieces are picked through you still have a bunch of inflated junk that you can use as collateral for other nefarious schemes.
Source: worked in a gallery for many years.
And, for the 'art investor', as long as other collectors don't sell for a lower price, it doesn't even matter. Many galleries will blacklist collectors who sell for lower prices. As long as there's someone to buy, you're fine.
Most art sales don't happen through public auction. If you want to invest in more art, you'll have to go through galleries, which may choose whether or not to sell to you. And word does get around about who is bringing down the price of an artist.
A comment on HN the other day referred to this as the 'moral crumple zone:' how responsibility for an action may be misattributed to a human actor who had limited control over the behavior of an automated or autonomous system.
