It IS subjective.
For a game of its kind it can have sold realy well yet not have sold enough to make up for a poor management and way too big of a debt.
It wouldn't change the reality of "it sold well" but still validate "it didn't sell well enough"
Some has already be done, in 2012 I think a team from harvard found biological markers which were identicals in patients suffering from autism/bipolar disorder/schyzophrenia and adhd and since adhd is a group of symptoms which can be caused by every "real" disorded listed above we found the biological something you mention.
If you want to learn more about ADHD there's a intresting book about it called "ADHD doesn't exist" which relates over 40 years in the matter by a specialist of the field.
The author explains that ADHD is too often treated as the problem itself when it's "just" symptoms. He also takes time to explain every source he's observed to cause there symptoms, how he looks for them with daily patients and what to do/how to deal with these problems properly.
I learnt a lot about myself and what could realy be the cause of my ADHD reading it.
Having recently been diagnosed with ADHD too I must say that the book "ADHD doesn't exist" helped me as it provides great tools to understand what it is but also how to live with it and where to look for its source as it's almost always a symptom in itself and thus can be cured.
The idea that "ADHD can be cured" is misguided and borne out of the fact that there are plenty dopamine dysfunction syndromes that _present_ like ADHD, but it's not ADHD proper.
For example, long term (drug) addiction presents itself as ADHD. To make confusion worse, plenty ADHD sufferers tend to abuse and get addicted to pleasurable activities (drugs, food, porn, etc.), worsening their condition. [1] It feels a bit like a chicken and egg situation but the point is: ADHD is a measurable difference in the pre frontal cortex that _needs_ to have been present since birth. There is no such thing as adult onset ADHD.
The point of this book is to emphathize how many conditions result in ADHD-like symptoms and how easily ADHD is diagnosed nowadays, often wrongly, resulting in heavy non-required treatments easily prescribed to people in need for something else.
Common arguments in opposition include: the existence of less energy-intensive cryptocurrencies (proof-of-stake), that cryptocurrencies provide safer ways to donate and engage in finance for people in oppressive countries
I don't see how energy efficient currencies and allowing safer ways for people in oppressive countries to donate is ideological
I don't know, do they really check who donated fiat comes from and refuse donations when it comes from, let's say, anyone involved in anything against their values ?
Checking this may be impractical. But for crypto donations, you don't need to check - you _know_ that it was generated in an environmentally-unfriendly way (at least for the currencies currently accepted).
Then why not just accept serious stablecoins ?
No speculations over it, just a virtual dollar, energy efficient allowing freedom and privacy to a lot ?
Even though the arguments in support of the ban are to be taken into account it's right that the arguments in opposition make a lot of sense and it doesn't seem like they've been taken into account.
When you're begging for money you don't spit on a way to get some more because you disagree with some stuff it's related, you look for solutions to please everyone.
As you said a lot of what's actually done with cryptocurrencies and blockchain based applications is wrong/pernicious but it doesn't mean that nothing good can come out of it. The all out war from some people you describe can also be seen here and is killing the efforts of serious people trying to build great things.
But that is just it, Wikipedia isn't that desperate for money that it has to do tricks for con artists and scammers. Now if Wikipedia was tethering at the edge of non existence it might be excusable, but it isn't, it is making enough to keep running without pandering to the scum of the earth.
First i'd love it if out of pure courtesy you avoided using stuff like "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way.
Then with banners like "Help us save Wikipedia, Wikipedia is in danger, donate" on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"
> "the scum of the earth" to describe people you disagree with because it doesn't help in any way.
The top comment was classifying crypto coins as mostly " part a scam, a ponzi scheme or a platform for pump and dumps". I was referring to that and if you identify with any of these points, you are most welcome otherwise I apologize for the confusion.
> on the website at least a month per year I have to disagree with your "Wikipedia isn't desperate for money"
They really aren't, they are even several years ahead of their own financial predictions.
The main point of it is to take out thridparties to fight against anything they could enforce.
Blockchains are public registries where you cryptographically sign everything you do to ensure it happened.
NFTs are digital assets, be it code, music or pictures. You can prove their unicity through the blockchain and if you were to trade an asset you'd have the proof it happened too.
Now you could sell your house on a safe p2p market without the need to involve banks for example.
It's really the main goal behind the crypto ecosystem, to provide a safe way to stop relying on often abusive thirdparties.
But you are not answering the question of my parent and myself; you can sell your house or land or whatever on the p2p market, but if the government doesn't allow you to sell your house or land, then that's that. You got money, the new owner got some digital snippet of something they now not own. Which makes it centralised; no different than it is now but with far more risks (abused smart contracts stealing the money for your house) and no recourse. So the problem is; what is exactly the decentralised advantage of this when you still need the same courts etc. Sure, no banks IFF the seller takes crypto and if the country in question is crypto friendly etc, but AML laws will kick in anyway. So I see the theory for having a house NFT and everyone singing and dancing the decentral dance, but in reality, this won't work or it will be exactly the same as any house deed transfer. I rather would see a gov that has my certified public key and I can sign from my mobile app to sell my house with one click and a notary handling it all without any parties having to rock up to some office etc. Blockchain fixes that , but no differently in UX (I think and I don't hear anything different) but far more inefficiently (and risky as there is no rollback) than what we can do with some cryptography and a php crud app?
Edit: in short, I would love to talk to a proponent of blockchain who has a more compelling story than 'transfer value'. I mean; I see the case for transferring money to and from warzones etc; if your gov does not allow you to use your money or doesn't allow you to buy a more stable currency than your country has, then this is a means, if kept on chain, for you to have liquidity.
No need to expose yourself, possible anonimity and most important one, the absolute lack of need of a third party which is the thing that most find intresting about blockchains usecases.
Except the most common way to do blockchain transactions are broker services which do require user information. This, combined with the fact that the blockchain is an immutable public ledger (meaning any transaction can be traced back indefinitely), and there goes anonymity.
By brokers you mean Centralised Exchanges ? If yes I agree it's an aberation as we've with recently with Russia's problems people getting banned from it because these exchanges are bounded to obey country's laws.
Everyone should leave CEXs to get on DEXs and learn about DeFi but as cool as it can be it's everything but userfriendly and as it is it'll never make it to public adoption.
About tracing transactions as long as you don't dox yourself everything people can have about a wallet being yours is suspicions and there's always services to make it shady like tornadocash or anonimity oriented blockchains
> Everyone should leave CEXs to get on DEXs and learn about DeFi
That is not going to happen, for the same reasons why most people don't dig their own wells, learn carpentry to make their own furniture, or weave their own cloth and learn how to tailor clothes.
Every complex enough system will always have centralized points, aka. gatekeepers. That is how human society self-organises.
> That is not going to happen
IT's actually being worked on, it's something sometimes refered as a "layer 3" even if it's not realy one when you look at what are layers 1 and 2 but the goal of this logical "layer" is to make abstraction of everything, make crosschain needs and moves absolutely transparent. It's one big point for mass adoption and great thinkers and workers know that and are already working on that.
>Every complex enough system will always have centralized points, aka. gatekeepers.
That's where the problem is. 3rd partys have been introduced for security reasons but are nowadays far from it and that's what some people are actually fighting for. An autonomous system where the only pseudo 3rd party is an impartial public registry
Again: Most people will not use a more complex solution when a simpler one exists, regardless of whether the simpler solution requires a central authority. Example: People used to use IRC, which is a really easy to use system. Then along came chatrooms, and then centralized messenger systems. Sure, some people still use IRC, but they are not the majority.
> That's where the problem is. 3rd partys have been introduced for security reasons but are nowadays far from it and that's what some people are actually fighting for.
Which systems are "far from it"? The financial system? I get my paycheck every month, all payment processes work fine. The government systems? Elections in my country work flawlessly, tallied and protected by central authorities. The power grid? I haven't had an outage in 4 years, and the last one lasted all of 10 minutes. Public Transport in my country is affordable, well maintained and usually on time.
So it seems to me that centralized systems work just fine in the vast majority of cases.
Anonimity and privacy on internet are a right and you don't need to do shady stuff to enjoy them and outside of the immediate risk caused by doxing oneself when having a heavily valued crypto/nft portfolio I agree that it's not always needed.
It still should be an option though as when selling valuable stuff p2p some protection is always appreciated.
I don't really get the part on how selling something you own p2p makes you a third party and I don't care about the 2nd hand tickets market, I'm only intrested in a safe decentralized p2p market
I'm obviously not making a point against anonymity in general, so spare me the spiel.
> I don't really get the part on how selling something you own p2p makes you a third party and I don't care about the 2nd hand tickets market, I'm only intrested in a safe decentralized p2p market
The peers in this transaction are the event organizer and the person who ends up with a ticket. The ticket scalper is third party that "facilitates" the transaction at a cost. Essentially a broker that no one asked for.
