Don't like this style of article where the "How" is "in what manner do they use it?" and not "what techniques do they use?". I would prefer to see specific lab setups, how they use and coordinate agents, what kind of protocol they have for asking questions and verifying information, and so on.

Because it's written for marketing and engagement, not to actually teach anyone anything.

You make a beautifully honest point that few people want to admit which is that things can be factually verified. Too many people are stuck on this idea that everything is up for debate.

It wouldn't work if the realisation of fraud takes longer than the window of time you've given the owner to make a blocking transaction. Banks are superior here because they have the power and ability to correlate multiple different kinds of evidence, and then reverse the transaction even years later. They have financial statements, biological proof, social evidence, much more than just one cryptographic key.

The main reason it is a differentiator is that centralised money understands that its purpose is to be a system of social credit, so reversibility of transactions is just an acknowledgement that there is enough evidence to prove that this particular individual owns this particular sum, so it should go back to them. It is actually a much better and more honest system than the blockchain, because it doesn't treat money like a tangible resource in and of itself that can be "lost" which would be a much older and dumber way of doing things.

Is cash centralised money? Because just as courts can order cash transaction reversals they can also order cryptocurrency transaction reversals.

Yes but if your cryptocurrency is supported by courts then it is no longer decentralised money and on top of that some of it is going to have to be converted to fiat at some point just to engage with the legal system if nothing else.

There are styles which are timelessly bad and then there are styles which are only "bad" because they are overused. That's not the fault of the style, it was good style, that's why it became overused. The problem is us. We have a natural aversion to repetitive things, and I wouldn't call that contrarianism.

I don't know, I recall in music repetition actually being enjoyed by the listeners (although not always so much the craftsmen and critics). Same seems to go for verbal communication, while some claim that great authors wouldn't repeat themselves, poetry is also generally rated prettier/better/more enjoyable wording despite often incorporating repetition. Why would visual design/style be any different in regards to human preference for symmetry and repetition/recognizability (even though the ones who create it tire of doing samey stuff all day, every day)?

1. We're not talking about the same kinds of repetition. Repetition as a tool within a single artwork is not the same thing as widespread imitation across artworks.

2. Audial preferences are not the same thing as visual preferences, they're different parts of the brain.

But this looks really good. Great contrast, simple and quiet, background image does not take up the whole page, the only thing really wrong is the animations. It's proof that slop can be turned into gems by someone with an eye for it.

It's fine, but if you spent hours telling it what not to do, at that point you are the one doing the designing.

The CIA hires "actual" artists, all the time and in great numbers. They have a creative writing division.

If you watch YouTube interviews/documentaries about the CIA, one of the things that all of them point out is the disguise division, which makes some fascinating facemasks and other disguises.