I don't have much substance to add to the discussion but this kind of topic is very relevant to the GNU project Taler which aims to bring an open payment infrastructure to general use/"the market".
They have significant investment and institutional interest notably from the EU and established organisations such as NLNet.
I am not affiliated but figure this deserves more attention, especially in this conversation.
While Youtube may be discounting direct revenue from this specific and limited set of content, Alphabet recognises the value of ostensibly being the quasi-exclusive repository & catalogue of video content.
Denying to their "users"/viewers the availability of some subset of content hurts their reputation more than "losing" a negligeable fraction of direct monetisation.
Leaving aside the morality of repudiating monetisation while allowing access, this is a sound strategy for maintaining the Youtube platform's monopoly and raison d'être. Which is after all the core of their ability to maximise shareholder value, and what else matters to a corporation?
It reminds of a (somewhat recent) article and discussion here on the design parameters for long-term nuclear waste storage facilities. One of the points was that to deter interference from pesky curious humans across the time scales considered, pictographic or lexical warnings may get degraded or lose meaning: the structure and area itself must convey a message of menace, drabness or inhospitability.
I'd have bet this was a test site for such a project. Which given the name of the installation might be the goal. If anyone remembers the paper in question, my algolia-fu is failing me.
It becomes necessary at some (low) value of concurrent write usage basically. Or if you want to lean on logic built into one of the "proper" RDBMS (GIS, granular access managment, ...).
Well, the only active users I see anymore are engaged in advertising even if not necessarily for profit. (Self) Promotion always was one of the draws of fb.
In some circles that'll count against you if you try to sell the product/company. Investors are interested in recurring revenue and will value it very differently than your loose-relation clients.
Not saying it's a thing you should always do, but worth keeping in mind.
> But you use a stablecoin because it's much more convenient since its stable.
I don't know how to say this without sounding snide but I am genuinely curious: you need to back every single part of that sentence up with some serious citations.
Specifically can you challenge my perception that you're advocating for option B of the following:
Option A: find someone to trade <thing you have> for <thing you want>, haggle, transact.
Option B: trust some tentacled bio-monstrosity to perform sophisticated transaction chains with a ton of misaligned incentives at each layer.
> The vast majority of alt-coins cannot be exchanged against dollars
I mean. You could, like, sell them on a forum or in person. With your wallet which is supposed to enable you to do just that.
I admire the success of crypto-exchanges' marketing in making them out to be the only way to conduct transactions on a friggin transaction management system. But then you'd have to deal with the fact that next to no one wants to organically trade <random myriad of altcoins/tokens>. I for one rejoice about the upcoming altcoin extinction event.
And that's how you get less informed private persons (ie. the public, ie. the "economy") over-leveraged on real-estate or junky assets holding the bag.
Re. EVE you'll find the epics retold in many places. For more regular happenings there are (were?) a few dedicated news sites: Crossing Zebras, Eve News 24, The Scope. No promises any of those are still alive, and in any case i recommend against digging too much if you don't play or aren't somewhat aware of the political scene IG. You'll mostly find petty or obscure events.
https://www.taler.net/en/index.html