your statement has way too many relative references, you speak of the latter, and the former, and the alliances between the opposition of the former against the alleged plans of the latter in a scenario where one invades a soon to be allied 3rd party
my point being is that in trying to sound serious and formal you've imposed on your reader an extra layer of unacking your point which you also had to needlessly pack so you'd sound like I already said (see: I did it again, put in a reference instead of repeating cuz it makes me sound more serious and 'deep')
> A hole is not something, it is a cavity in something else
this reasoning also applies to "infinity". it literally means NOT-finite. it refers to the lack of a thing: namely a biggest number.
then again, freaking language and maths sure make us able to think about these 'lack of [blank]' as if they were actual things (to the point that abstractly they are as real as it gets)
this person seem to not understand how microsoft's business stays on track.
they seem to really think that individual contributions truly affect Microsoft's fullfilment of their self-appointed mission; but I highly doubt this. Microsoft is really huge. No single individual can really detract, nor add too much, to the company's overall mission.
I'm have this paranoid supsicion that some powerful shadow (i.e. unkown) actor within the USA political landspace really wants to take Facebook/Meta down.
I suppose they did not go along somebody's political plans? so little trustworthy information sure makes my imagination take off
in this context, 'energy over time' is not what we are talking about.
I'll leap to say ultimately, it's probably quite like mass and gravity; the end observed effect of mass lumping together is like this 'observed' effect of power agglutinating. but which is the mass? and which is the gravity?
I'm beginning to understand, how is it (and thus, why is it) that decentralization is doomed to fail under our current culture.
decentralization, like what you describe in cab services, dilutes power. that's it. that's the only reason necessary to explain why it'll never be allowed to stay decentralized (and decentralizing). in many countries/cities, cab liceneses are quite a corrupt business; it comes down to who you know that can hook you up with one (kinda like drugs but without the raw illegality). typically the driver does not own neither the cab nor the licence; they're just some poor employee without many options.
>It would be fully decentralized, except for the payment part. If you have everyone on your platform you don’t need to issue tokens and other bullshit. Just build something useful and they will come.
sounds naive, you know who will also come if you start to get popular with your platform? the government/police who really act quite like a mob. them people who want/need/like to be powerful. because any such platform which is popular has power, power ripe for 'centralizing'; just say it's for safey and legality instead of 'centralizing'.
my point being is that in trying to sound serious and formal you've imposed on your reader an extra layer of unacking your point which you also had to needlessly pack so you'd sound like I already said (see: I did it again, put in a reference instead of repeating cuz it makes me sound more serious and 'deep')