Yes, my eyes don't hurt anymore, my vision has improved, and I sleep better. I won't go back. Reading condescending insults and "reasons" (in dark mode...) that flatly contradict direct experience won't change that.
Attempting to invoke the thankfully largely-discarded concept of "whataboutism" is actually just a kind of backhanded ad hominem used to avoid making a real argument and instead try to make people "look the other way".
Criticism of the existing financial system in the context of discussing a proposed replacement for it is about as related a discussion as possible.
Simply stating that all crypto is bad/criminal adds nothing of value to the discussion.
The truth is that there are (as there generally is with new technologies), useful and practical purposes to which they are applied. Indeed, the majority instances so far of "crypto" having caused harm has actually been the result of an ordinary centralised trust-based fraud donning the label "crypto" to draw in victims to loot.
The #1 mantra of crypto has always been "not your keys, not your coins". Had it been followed, instead of perverted into its opposite and mislabelled "crypto", the most heinous of these scams would not have been enabled.
The thing most actively facilitating crime and fraud in "crypto" lately is the profoundly misguided belief that giving your money to someone you've never met you saw on TV is safer than keeping it in your own wallet.
Crypto is not to blame for that belief, it was invented to provide an alternative.
Where is the line? One could equally then argue use the number working on only the one construction site. Eventually a point can be reached where 1 death may "seem" improbable. A wider view reveals a context people seem to have missed.
There are 1+ million migrant workers in Qatar. Roughly, the average human mortality rate is about 1% per year. In a given population of 1 million, you could expect about 27 to die, on average each day. (0.01x1000000)/365 = 27
Sure, more elderly people make up the 1%, and if accounting for the workers ages maybe you'll have half that figure. Or a quarter. The point is, in context, one worker dying out of a million on any given day is unfortunately expected.
It doesn't mean it's not sad, or that the persons life was worthless, or that the death should not be investigated to determine the cause. It does mean that out of 1 million, thousands will ordinarily die during any given year.
How many times per day would it take for an authority to issue a statement like the above before such statements begin to seem trite and meaningless?
The article began well, I hadn't previously heard the gas wave/pressure analogy. It helped me see current/voltage in a presumably useful way.
However, after introducing this analogy, the remainder of the article seemed to abandon it and instead load on more and more new terms without referencing them back to the analogy. This lost me, and toward the end I gave up.