Namecoin examples are catalogued at: punycodes.xyz. The are small Unicode art or emoji code.

There seems to be nothing of particular artistic value as far as we've seen so far, the only interest in such tokens seems to be that:

A useless piece of paper (or digital version of it) that you can pay taxes with :)

As opposed to:

Our minimal definition of "electronic money" is the following.

Instead of creating legal tender such as Dollars as banknotes or transactions in some complex obscure banking system, the government offers an official simple centralized API that represents it instead.

Each citizen or legal entity has an account there, and transfers between registered users are just simple API calls.

So for example you would e able to put all your money in the government account instead of using useless banks. And then you would invest it as you want with the investment company of your choice, without tying the "my money is here" with "this is the best investment" aspects of banks.

What they presented on richard Feynman's first seminar in 1941. Does not include quantum mechanics it seems.

Centralized system that still attempts some level of privacy.

In it, a central bank issue tokens that are stored offline in your cell phone, a bit like cash bank notes.

When you take those tokens, a corresponding amount gets removed from your bank account, a bit like cash bank notes.

When a transaction is made, tokens are put into a spent token list via central API, and cannot be double spent thereafter. The corresponding ammount is then added to the bank account of the receiver. This also means that offline transactions are not possible.

When emitting, the bank signs the token with their private key. When spending, the bank checks that signature.

How do we prevent the bank from logging which token goes to which user besides trusting that they are running the software we whink they are running? Notably, couldn't timing be used to identify that?

They were basically a Microsoft of their century. A little less monopolistic perhaps as countries believed they should own they natural resources, unlike their data.

All companies with investors are evil, make no mistake.

They may have nice looking save the world charity campaigns, but once you get even close to affecting their revenue stream, the axe falls. The charity is only a publicity stunt to reduce wages.

Some level of government intervention is needed to control investor's greed.

It is just a question of business model: some business models are eviler than others. Making people pay for operating systems being possible the most evil of all.

One thing must be said however. You can learn a lot by working in a good company, because it ends up putting you in contact with practical real problems that you wouldn't otherwise see by just doing your own random low-tech startup. This is especially valuable if said company is also enlightened enough to use and contribute back to open source software, thus improving the world and paying back the moral debt of using other people's work for free.

Another important point to consider is who in the company is evil. In a sane tech company, the lowly engineers are going to be non-evil. And then the more you go up the management chain, the more aligned you have to be with investors, and thus the more and more evil you get. HR is just evil from the bottom though, it's just the nature of their job.

Initially a phenomenological guess to explain the periodic table. Later it was apparently proven properly with the spin-statistics theorem, physics.stackexchange.com/questions/360140/theoretical-proof-of-paulis-exclusion-principle.

And it was understood more and more that basically this is what prevents solids from collapsing into a single nucleus, not electrical repulsion: electron degeneracy pressure!

Bibliography: