Copying from one digital medium to another is a very easy operation (to the contrary of copying from paper to paper). At equal "care" I don't see why digital backups should be worse than paper ones.
It's not about efficiency, it's about avoiding getting caught for criminal acts. Since criminals don't pay taxes on their earnings and don't have to pay for all sorts of things others do, they're already more "efficient"
Sure, but if you're going through a distribution service that has a 60/40 split with Spotify, are you going to be okay with 40% of your laundered proceeds getting eaten by Spotify? How does that compare to other laundering opportunities? And that's not even counting the costs imposed by your distributer. For example, if you have 1,000 tracks, on TuneCore that's $10,000 dollars just for track distribution, as well as a $50 per-album yearly fee. It does seem somewhat inefficient, and very easy for Spotify to notice and crack down on. (But they don't have a lot of incentive to look too closely, since they're getting paid handsomely for it...)
As someone who started playing without having any idea about the platform landscape, and therefore chose the first Google result, which seemed to have a legit UI and domain name, and then met people who also happen to be on this platform, I would guess that their main strengths are: SEO, UI, brand, and the network effect.
How much does network effect really matter past a certain point for low-to-mid ELO chess players? Whether there are 100 or 10k players in my ELO range at any given time, I'm unlikely to even notice it. IMO you just have to get past a certain threshold (which both Lichens and Chesscom have long passed); granted it is probably higher the better of a player you are as your opponent pool thins out.
In my anecdotal experience, lichess has a smaller playerbase and it's most noticeable in the middle elo where certain lines or trends end up very popular in the lichess community and get overplayed. Whereas on chess.com I am more likely to see a bigger variety of openings. I had written off chess.com in favor of lichess but now that I play both I actually enjoy the chess.com user base as a differentiator between the two.
A lot of work computers MiTM all traffic using a corporate certificate authority. A middle box tears apart the requests, and repacks it using its own cert.
You need to have a significant following for this to have any relevance. If you have a significant following, you have a strong incentive not to post the most grotesque things.
You post things outrageous enough, believe me, a significant following will raise up around it.
I think we're all about to witness the tragedy of the commons in real time if Musk buys twitter. Because there are literally thousands of people in college towns alone all across the US who will descend on Twitter and do this. Probably millions outside of college towns who will do the same. it's too bad.
My bet is we'll end up filing this under "This is why we can't have nice things".
Any source on that? I agree with the assessment about engineers (althought it's a generalization), but I always thought it was because their "focused work" is what they actually like doing. In my experience work was most stressful when it strayed the most from focused work.
Can you elaborate a bit on what kind of "source" you'd like to see? I'm trying to imagine what could possibly satisfy this request and I'm coming up blank.
Generally, slapping "Source?" in a reply to a comment is a lot less helpful and productive than you might initially think.
If you can maintain a state of focus and actively like your work, you are likely near peak productivity and quite far from possible burnout. Just don't push beyond your reasonable limits or you might end up giving yourself a heart attack.
Copying from one digital medium to another is a very easy operation (to the contrary of copying from paper to paper). At equal "care" I don't see why digital backups should be worse than paper ones.