You can't regulate away exchanges for the same reason you can't regulate away black markets.If you wanna buy say transitioning medicine in russia, you wanna use Monero for anonymity, and you exchange it through a "p2p exchange". Which are what formed after many countries banned Monero entirely. "p2p exchange" is just a protocol where you can "trade" with random joe schmo, but insured. So you end up just wiring some random regular person money and they give you Monero. Or on the inverse you get wired money and give someone your Monero.
I.e. you exchange Monero with random people without any exchange. Good look regulating that.
Sweden is indeed de-facto opting out by not meeting the stability threshold on purpose, but the others simply don't qualify.Waiting to fall into the criteria naturally is how it's intended, not wanting to artificially accelerate it is the correct move in my (and apparently their) opinion, I don't see anything about them still planning to avoid it when they meet the economic targets.
Right now they seem to simply say "don't do what greece did".
There's not really a replacement for this one, it'll likely be important later.This is clearly the kind of thing you disown and nationalize, not blindly destroy.
If you have a million stolen licenses, but on the road remain very few, say 1k. While there are say 100m other cars. If you now have 99% accuracy, you will read 990 stolen cars, and misread 1m plates. Since 1% of plates are stolen, you randomly hit 10k of those misreads into a stolen plate.
This is generally alwayd an issue with rolling out mass tests. If the thing you search is even rarer than your failure rate, most detections are errors no matter how good your test.
This is why we don't just test everyone for diseases all the time even when it would be very cheap and simple.
It even has the "here is a link to the entirety of our policy" trope. Like com'on, bruh, this is actually making me angry just reading it regardless of context.I loathe that sort of shit.
Sega doesn't want to preserve the ownership of their ip, they were bought by a gambling company who took on their name and is using sega as a public relations shield.Their aim is to keep sega in high public esteem.
Meanwhile Nintendos ip is extremely valuable compared to the size of their company, so their aim is to protect ownership way more than making new games or other ongoing business.
International ip law is weird, so letting fanmade games go runs a risk of loosing ip. For Nintendo that is even more dangerous than for other studios whose ip value compared to revenue is not as extreme. While for sega ultimately loosing ip control is basically the point of the investment.
You can't regulate away exchanges for the same reason you can't regulate away black markets.If you wanna buy say transitioning medicine in russia, you wanna use Monero for anonymity, and you exchange it through a "p2p exchange". Which are what formed after many countries banned Monero entirely. "p2p exchange" is just a protocol where you can "trade" with random joe schmo, but insured. So you end up just wiring some random regular person money and they give you Monero. Or on the inverse you get wired money and give someone your Monero.
I.e. you exchange Monero with random people without any exchange. Good look regulating that.