33916 pts ยท May 25, 2012
Hi!
Having looked up some info. It's clear that squaring both sides would give i = -1 (False) The actual answer is SQRT(i) = +-(SQRT(2)/2)*(1+i)
Isn't i just the multiplicative identity on the imaginary line, in the same way 1 is the MI on the real line? Meaning SQRT(i) = +-i ?
Absolute banger, I just discovered the original from this post and it's *chef's kiss*
I think he's made some well thought out points, I don't follow closely but this is such clear idiocy it makes me doubt everything he's said.
Chivalry 3 looking good.
Those aren't NFT websites. They're internet traffic websites. I've never tried to sell anything. I have done nothing to earn this disdain.
Summary: sorry for the barrage of replies, it seemed necessary. Please understand I have no bias here, internet articles usually just suck.
across several website traffic analysis sites, their numbers varied so hard to quote here but look yourself: reviewbolt, semrush, similarweb
Headline info, app downloads down 94%? That's because you can't use their app to trade NFTs, try hits on their website: looking stable...
Hit the transaction tab, it's the V1 contract, so ignore the flatline in february (when they upgraded), things suddenly looking better.
Transaction volume charts posted inline in the article? https://etherscan.io/address/0x7be8076f4ea4a4ad08075c2508e481d6c946d12b#analytics
Google trends down 80%? Go look, it's down 60% (obviously still bad but indicates the info is wrong)
I did, half of it is instantly debunkable and doesn't match with what's observable at the source.
Again, not what I said. Thank you for making this little foray into bias and echo chambers interesting.
That just tells me you have no idea how to vet the data you're sourcing. I've presented evidence to back myself up, you've just said "no".
Ok. I suppose you're also allowed to declare your opinion as fact, as that wasn't what I was arguing against. Data was still good.
I haven't seen any data that disagrees with what I posted above that's remotely as trustworthy, that's just raw blockchain data on a chart.
There's no bias. I've verified the data myself. As have (at least) dozens of others. It's just data, there's no human element here.
I'm not pushing anything, just presenting clear facts and observing your bias. You're allowed to think they're stupid. I have no opinion.
(2/2) like this: https://dune.com/queries/624540/1165134 and each address and function call is publicly documented on etherscan.
I specifically picked them because they're trivial to verify (if you have some blockchain knowledge). You can open every chart (1/2)
Lol, it's the only place I can find ripe pickings for looking at people's inherent bias and inability to process information. Case in point.
"slightly" was right. Opensea is much, much larger than the competition: https://dune.com/hildobby/OpenSea-VS-LooksRare-VS-CoinbaseNFT
(2/2) which means things are growing slightly more rapidly than is evident on those charts.
These charts were updated 2 hours ago lmao (update time is visible on the page). Opensea is the largest, but it is losing market share (1/2)
(2/2) A common error is that you have to ignore the most recent bar on each chart as they're incomplete for the current month. Is that it?
There's some mistake in your interpretation. Every chart on that page is just NFT data, almost every chart shows close to ATH activity. 1/2
I'm chill, currently just trying to measure bias. It's interesting to me how little people know or understand and how vehemently they argue.
Then you don't know what you're looking at. All data is publicly verifiable on chain, opensea only trades NFTs. It is what it looks like.
Can't possibly be the publicly verifiable blockchain data. Must be all these un-dated news article headlines/memes. Your bias is insane.
Having looked up some info. It's clear that squaring both sides would give i = -1 (False) The actual answer is SQRT(i) = +-(SQRT(2)/2)*(1+i)
Isn't i just the multiplicative identity on the imaginary line, in the same way 1 is the MI on the real line? Meaning SQRT(i) = +-i ?
Absolute banger, I just discovered the original from this post and it's *chef's kiss*
I think he's made some well thought out points, I don't follow closely but this is such clear idiocy it makes me doubt everything he's said.
Chivalry 3 looking good.
Those aren't NFT websites. They're internet traffic websites. I've never tried to sell anything. I have done nothing to earn this disdain.
Summary: sorry for the barrage of replies, it seemed necessary. Please understand I have no bias here, internet articles usually just suck.
across several website traffic analysis sites, their numbers varied so hard to quote here but look yourself: reviewbolt, semrush, similarweb
Headline info, app downloads down 94%? That's because you can't use their app to trade NFTs, try hits on their website: looking stable...
Hit the transaction tab, it's the V1 contract, so ignore the flatline in february (when they upgraded), things suddenly looking better.
Transaction volume charts posted inline in the article? https://etherscan.io/address/0x7be8076f4ea4a4ad08075c2508e481d6c946d12b#analytics
Google trends down 80%? Go look, it's down 60% (obviously still bad but indicates the info is wrong)
I did, half of it is instantly debunkable and doesn't match with what's observable at the source.
Again, not what I said. Thank you for making this little foray into bias and echo chambers interesting.
That just tells me you have no idea how to vet the data you're sourcing. I've presented evidence to back myself up, you've just said "no".
Ok. I suppose you're also allowed to declare your opinion as fact, as that wasn't what I was arguing against. Data was still good.
I haven't seen any data that disagrees with what I posted above that's remotely as trustworthy, that's just raw blockchain data on a chart.
There's no bias. I've verified the data myself. As have (at least) dozens of others. It's just data, there's no human element here.
I'm not pushing anything, just presenting clear facts and observing your bias. You're allowed to think they're stupid. I have no opinion.
(2/2) like this: https://dune.com/queries/624540/1165134 and each address and function call is publicly documented on etherscan.
I specifically picked them because they're trivial to verify (if you have some blockchain knowledge). You can open every chart (1/2)
Lol, it's the only place I can find ripe pickings for looking at people's inherent bias and inability to process information. Case in point.
"slightly" was right. Opensea is much, much larger than the competition: https://dune.com/hildobby/OpenSea-VS-LooksRare-VS-CoinbaseNFT
(2/2) which means things are growing slightly more rapidly than is evident on those charts.
These charts were updated 2 hours ago lmao (update time is visible on the page). Opensea is the largest, but it is losing market share (1/2)
(2/2) A common error is that you have to ignore the most recent bar on each chart as they're incomplete for the current month. Is that it?
There's some mistake in your interpretation. Every chart on that page is just NFT data, almost every chart shows close to ATH activity. 1/2
I'm chill, currently just trying to measure bias. It's interesting to me how little people know or understand and how vehemently they argue.
Then you don't know what you're looking at. All data is publicly verifiable on chain, opensea only trades NFTs. It is what it looks like.
Can't possibly be the publicly verifiable blockchain data. Must be all these un-dated news article headlines/memes. Your bias is insane.