Which side is which? As someone not on twitter I’m constantly bombarded with anti-crypto stuff while almost never organically see pro-crypto pieces. I’m assuming you see the opposite? Gotta love algorithmic echo chambers.
“Is thing in wallet” strikes me as much easier to implement then n^2 api integrations across companies. It’d be easier to do the api method via drm platforms like steam at the cost of lock-in to those platforms; cross pc/console access to any item would be far from guaranteed. Outsourcing all of that logic to a centralized (ex google blockchain) or decentralized blockchain and wallet just seems like a more scalable (num of actors not tps) approach with a low barrier for entry for each individual actor.
Your comment about “trust” has little to do with the technology. It’s a cross between legal gray areas (which would need to be solved/accepted if this becomes the norm) and dogma surrounding web3. I tend to agree that this isn’t likely to happen unless from software essentially abandoned their ip for some reason. But if that happened, it’d be a cool way for the legacy to live in future games in a way that pays homage to the original creators. It’s a use case that makes much more sense then just copying a random gun from one game to another because there are years of history in the item.
A more interesting example would be From software issuing a “moonlight sword” nft (maybe for an achievement like 100% elden ring) and various indie devs creating souls-like games choosing to honor it within their game.
I’d disagree that the only reason people would panic is lack of communication. If you have enough of the events I listed happen I close each other such that the government can’t adequately respond to them, there would be a panic.
I guess my point is maybe that we’re in a fragile system rather then a bubble. It’s self sustainable in the steady state (to your point) but if it breaks it’s going to completely collapse and we just have to hope that we never reach the point where it could break. It’s a Similar line of thinking to controlled burns to manage forest fire before they get uncontrollably big. But in the USA at least, the safety net isn’t there to allow for controlled burns in the economy.
One could argue stimulus inflates the bubble even more especially if it just goes to wealthy people. The worry there is that it seems to be the only way to prevent a crash; so if there’s another pandemic, war, series of natural disasters fueled by climate change, drought/famine they just print more money and inflate it even more. Just keep pulling the lever until it breaks.
Or maybe it never breaks and we should just pull the lever a bunch today and buy our way out of all the worlds problems.
What’s that quote? It’s something along the lines of “the way to get good people to accept or do evil things is to convince them that the end justifies the means”
Judiciary doesn’t make laws. Every controversial ruling that people worry the SCOTUS could be permanently solved by passing a law or amending the constitution. But if that happens then lawmakers no longer have the talking point to use when running for re-election every 2/6 years so both parties they a shared incentive to keep the status quo.
If you don’t put it into law/constitution then a new set of justices could reverse the ruling in the future.
> Do you expect people to pretend the trend isn't happening in order to comfort you? What does it say about your own values that they are so loosely held that you'd sacrifice them out of contempt like this?
And now we’ve come full circle. Using “whataboutism” to avoid conversations about topics is a problem. Whether you’re using it to deflect to a different topic or using it as an excuse to avoid talking about a topic altogether. Someone could argue your comment is the latter and is just as harmful.
But I think most of that is a limitation of text/internet communication that people don’t consciously notice. It’s much easier to have nuance in an in-person conversation.
some people’s news choices begin and end on Facebook. Does that mean Facebook would have a monopoly on news if it that market shared increased enough? What’s stopping people from just typing in a non Amazon.com address into their browser?
I get maybe for the older population but that’d put a 10-20 year cap on Amazon dominance before the majority of their customer base understands the internet enough to look for alternatives if amazons service isn’t good enough.
I think the worry with natural infection is if the timing is such to provide durable immunity. But it’s not like the vaccines have had 5 years of trials to determine the best wait between the 2 and 3 doses so kind of a moot point.