> (2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.
For context, the definition of web 3.0 from Tim Berners-Lee gives a good idea an the level of hazyness of this concept:
> People keep asking what Web 3.0 is. I think maybe when you've got an overlay of scalable vector graphics — everything rippling and folding and looking misty — on Web 2.0 and access to a semantic Web integrated across a huge space of data, you'll have access to an unbelievable data resource.
What is a regular personal "Web 1.0" website other than "user generated content" though. If anything, "Web 2.0" was the perversion of the original WWW idea by "big tech". We already had the "decentralized web" for a few golden years before the bean counters discovered the internet.
Your personal page is likely largely static (in content, if not tech) and defined by you, the site owner. Web 2 allowed the public site users to generate/curate the content on the site.
This is either outright bullshit or a clumsy attempt at historical revisionism. Web2 didn't introduce technology that wasn't existing before. It was the unwashed masses flooding what had previously been a space of high SNR AND the big corporations seizing control (and terms like "web2" were used to that effect) in order to exploit the herd.
This is happening again now with the web3 fad. A new generation of gullible idiots and sociopaths to take them for a ride.
Feedback from Qatar is always taken with a grain of salt given the long history of Akbar Al Baker using fallacious pretexts to engage in ruthless contractual fights.
Isn't Thailand a straight-up military dictatorship?