You are ignoring the huge number of crypto, or to be more specific, Blockchain projects that have inherent utility. There are many, and few will survive but some assuredly will. I do believe in DePIN as a concept, and I think it's likely the immediate future. And it's not the only buzzword that does actually have potential. Quantum computing seems like Fusion to me. Always a mere decade away, with only a few insurmountable problems to solve.

Decentralised does not mean without governance. Many of the newer lesser known tokens are governed by the projects they are used for. This, I believe, is a good thing, Each project returns us closer to a world where currency is linked to tangibles. And the control remains with the communities that built them.

Imagine being a business that trades with other nations, and the collapse of the government in the country you operate in results in a once profitable business losing 100x the value of the product over night.

It's harder for that to happen with tokens linked to the businesses that offer a good or service.

How are we now linking crypto to anti capitalism? It's quite the opposite and it's nothing to do with a post scarcity world ideal. I do believe that crypto currency will return finance to something that is closer to the people that use them, and provide a means to involve people more widely, give them a stake, if you will, in the policy surrounding them.

Any centralised regulations need to focus on preventing fraudulent systems. And they are innumerable, which is how we end up with statements like Linuses. I suspect you'll find this comment ages like Bill Gates and his infamous statement about networking.

I appreciate the advice, but I already do wear deodorant. I guess whether they are problems or not is subjective. I'm not convinced that being sanitised is a good thing. Microbiome of the skin is a thing. Being more hygienic and therefore more appealing is also subjective. Hygienic isn't high up on my list of qualities of value. Obviously, there's a threshold and everyone has a different value for it.

I didn't say don't use anything, I said it's valid to decide not use products marketed as "deodorant" and "Antiperspirant". It's not like I follow that advice. I wear deodorant, and aftershave. But I have experimented with not wearing any, and using "eco" ones.

What I am saying is that I do agree with what is in the article, which is summarised as both products have created a false problem, and used that to create a market.

And it isn't at all like AC. Humans smell. It's not a completely negative thing to me. I don't want a completely sanitised olfactory experience. If you wash daily, most of the time, Antiperspirant isn't needed. But depends on what you are doing and what the climate is. In temperate conditions, I can go a day without smelling any different, without deodorant on. It changes when the weather is hot, and if I do strenuous exercise. But you can just wash more often.

What I've found is that certain soaps change the situation, as does what I eat. Garlic and Cumin seems to have a significant effect.

The article gets quite a lot right. Both sets of products are solving problems that didn't exist, and create problems that very much do. These range from psycho-social problems to physical environmental problems.

The answer is don't buy either. But that means being ok with being able to smell one another. That would be a return to the default state of probably a million years. But how are we all going to do that at the same time over night?

Which is EXACTLY the same as all other fiscal vehicles. Except in the case of USD, the group of sociopaths you describe are the elected representatives of USGOV. What defines money as real, Vs not real? The fact that it's backed by the central bank? Is that actually a good thing and positive for anyone? Decentralised finance as a concept is a good thing. Sometimes it takes a little froth for something to take hold. I'll bet there were a bunch of people who said similar things about trading shares and futures trading. You can argue that both of those things are ultimately scams. They are legitimised only due to the fact they make capital. Crypto makes capital. And it's now easy to swap between fiat and crypto.

I LOL at OSS people who say that a government backed crypto currency is a good thing. Explain how monolithic control of finance is good for everyone. Please

Haven't read the work, but if I can extrapolate based on assumption, this seems like something that makes sense in an innate way.

Colour would be the best example. And I think it's an interesting one. The utility in recognising district colours is fairly obvious. Our conscious and memory need a way to label the experience of encountering different wavelengths of light, Otherwise you wouldn't be able to recognise them again surely? You at least need a form of language internally to have the ability to recognise a pattern you've experienced. To me that speaks to the utility of internal dialogue/monologue.

Your own experience of a specific colour can differ wildly from another person's. However, because the wavelength is the same, you can attach a common label to it.

The question of which originated first is interesting to me, but because of the further point, a fundamental system of attaching common labels must exist. Kids can often sort objects in categories before language skills develop.

Seems to me that we do have a universal internal language innate to all of us and we learn a common language later. It also stands to reason that the origins of external language must be based on ancestral internal language.

Perhaps those without verbal internal monologue/dialogue have a more persistent innate language, that is not overwritten by common external language?

/Ramble

I counter this perspective with the fact that quality doesn't improve proportionally with the price. You pay more and get Incrementally less. That's actually not directly the consumers fault. If you paid two thirds more but got 150% more, then it would be worth it. But the only way to do that is probably to reduce the quality of the cheaper seats.

Deus Causa Sui

It's not a game of sportsball. You can be on the side of people getting murdered who have no direct control of the decisions of the governments and organisations committing atrocities.

That's the UN's job in fact. They aren't picking a side, and they are saying both sides have done wrong. All that's happened is the UN acknowledging an objective fact, if you consider killing civilians and targeting civilian infrastructure to be wrong.

You missed the silent /s