> The only way to prevent that would be a fully trustless "cell" structure where none of conspirators know each other, which has never been done in real life.
When properly done, such organization is almost impossible to find. I'd not be too sure about them not existing. The idea is well known, so someone must have tried it at least.
This is already occurred, in some limited from. See quicks mode [1], for instance. Also there is WebAssembly, which should be the replacement for JS. At some point a good-enough UI toolkit for it will be written, and then that could replace HTML/CSS.
For the younger greenhorns among us: Once upon a time, we used to declare what version of HTML a page was written in with the doctype tag at the very top of the file.
Certain versions of HTML thus declared, incorrectly formed doctypes, or more often the absence of the doctype declaration altogether, would tell most rendering engines to enter Quirks Mode and render the page with backwards compatibility as the highest priority.
I'd guess 90% dev jobs don't involve any algo knowledge more complicated than "should I pick a list or hashmap" or "which columns need indices". They involve converting business logic into code and combining it with good UI/UX.
How hard can it be to keep a many-to-many mapping between account ids and skin ids, and then make a way to transfer those between accounts, potentially for some fee? Steam has had it for a decade without any issues.
The game publisher still has the final authority on whether a skin is displayed in game or not, and no blockchain is going to change that.
The reason Riot doesn't do this is that it would reduce profits. If they would make more money otherwise, they would be doing that already.
I'm more curious what they mean by "Trojan integration". Considering how Microsoft has been a trusted Apple app developer for over 20 years, that's a pretty heavy accusation.
Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train, and the car driving has 100x serious accident probability. However, you save 40 minutes if you drive. Likely, driving doesn't take 40 min off your life expectancy. And even if it did, you save the minutes now, and not at the end of your life.
> Consider having to decide between a 20 min trip by car, or 1 hour trip by train
Couple issues with this. First why not a 20 minute trip by car with fees for parking and all that versus a 20 minute trip by train? Depending on where you live this can be your currently daily experience. It could also be anyones daily experience if we just decided we wanted to do that.
The second issue is that simple comparing the surface level time-by-transit misses most of the particulars that matter. And you are also mistakenly applying individual experience with aggregate experience i.e. 40 minutes saved for the individual but in aggregate many people actually do die because of the 100x serious injury probability.
It seems easier because Mars proponents often focus on the technological challenges (which are indeed great, if not insurmountable), while ignoring the human challenges. The challenges from human nature are going to exist on Mars just as much as they do on Earth; things like warfare don't suddenly stop existing just by shifting people to Mars. People act like Mars would be a place to keep people safe from nuclear war, but destroying a Mars colony from Earth is trivial compared to creating one.
If one looks at the history of colonies (attempts to colonize the new world, for instance), we see that they often fall apart socially even in situations where they're in a place with much more resources than they had back home. Humans aren't dwarf fortress type automatons that can simply be handed whatever necessary job is needed and mindlessly go about their day for the rest of their lives.
No one has been able to manufacture a functioning mini-society, and every attempt has ended in spectacular failure. It seems crazy to think things will suddenly work if we drop the people in a place devoid of almost all resources and entirely hostile to life from Earth.
How can you bring humans to Mars without also bringing human nature, i.e., human flaws? We'll wreck Mars quicker than Earth, because Mars is already a wreck.
It's not a question of starting or stopping; whether we start or stop seems irrelevant to me. The point is that humanity has been "coddled" by the Earth, because we were born and evolved here, but we won't be coddled by Mars, and thus the Mars project is doomed to failure, since we're already failing on Earth, in a vastly more favorable environment.
What's the point of a "backup plan" when the primary plan isn't even working?
Humans will still be the ones colonizing Mars, the same humans who would theoretically make Earth uninhabitable. If we humans can't stop destroying Earth, we have no chance in making a Mars colony successful.
The question is how many people pay the $99 now and how many pay the $10 then. If you can't convert 10x the people you have paying now, you will be losing money.
When properly done, such organization is almost impossible to find. I'd not be too sure about them not existing. The idea is well known, so someone must have tried it at least.