In fact, the current CEO of Unity (One of the most popular game engine) said that anyone who's not baking monetization into their games right from the start is "f*king idiot".
>and using a competitor is suicide because your content will never get any traction
You can post on multiple platforms, you know. Content creators aren't stupid. They post on whichever platform is buzzing. It's their day job and the most popular ones know what they are doing than any of us.
>but that might not temper a mindset as mathematically conducive as notions of "completion and balancing".
Or maybe what would be considered a mathematically conducive mindset is determined by whose mathematical tradition we are following? Maybe there exists a mathematical mindset out there where "domination and sacrificing" are the requirement for conductivity of ideas?
Or maybe its far too soon for us to say if the West (or the Greeks who you guys almost worship as a culture) has produced more than 1 or 2 great mathematicians?
Maybe the peoples of the future will only consider one particular mathematician as the relevant one? Maybe like Turing, because most likely computers will become a greater part of the world at large? Maybe we see programmers the way people used to see scribes some time back?
Only for the later (even if major) part of his life. One could argue that the physicality he was capable of in the earlier stage of his life helped him gain a solid understanding of physics on our level.
But there is a better argument to be made: Modern Physics is an entirely different beast. To understand the underlying reality you have to be, in one sense of the word, be detached from the reality. And being paralyzed can be said to be one of the many things that let him have experiences unlike that of any almost any other human being. His earlier life let him have a solid footing on the dynamics of our level, and his later life allowed him to depart from it, in a direction in which he was propelled by his intellect.
I would argue that if Stephen Hawking was a sports instructor (or even a programmer for a sport software), his lack of physicality would have worked against him. But if you showed me someone with a severe physical disability who writes great code for sport software, I would revert to my first argument.
>>We have some vague models of it ("the brain is like a computer and the mind is like a program running on it")
I agree with the thrust of your argument, but this itself is wrong. When the Europeans were figuring out complex gears and stuff, they thought that the brain is like a complex cog machine (that was when they thought that mind was different, I think). When fluid dynamics became the craze, they started comparing, brain to a machine that manipulates some fluid.
The truth is that we don't even have a model for it.
Its because in real conversations, you talk to 1-2 other people and not a million. If a lot of people are discussing something (as they do in parliaments) people have a way of upvoting (by banging tables) or downvoting (booing) others.
Because it measures all the goods and services produced in a country over the course of an year.
I know of a way to inflate it as much you want, but I don't think I will ever be in a position to use it.