This. Externalities need to become accounted for when we want to completely evaluate the cost of an activity.
Just because those companies or us as individuals don't need to pay for the future damage, doesn't mean that cost doesn't exist, and by not accounting the externalities, the consumption of said products is incentivised since they become "cheaper" than alternatives that are presented to the end user with a higher cost.
In places where there's limited land and a surplus of water,
it makes a lot of sense to optimize for land. So there, grow & eat crops.
And in places where there's a lot of land and limited water,
it makes sense to optimize for water. So there, grow & eat ruminants.
P.S.: There are also other things to take into account, but think that already shows how we should balance our view and not advocate for a single form of subsistence everywhere.
So where does this leave sticker albums (Panini, etc) or any other collectable that does not serve what is seen as a generally practical purpose in the World? (don't think that digital vs. physical should play a part in this)
In gambling you are mostly doing it for a clear financial gain: you play for money/fiat. Loot boxes, sticker albums, and so on, the primary purpose is not a financial gain. That is a byproduct and secondary, which some elect to make it their primary purpose for engaging in it.
IMO this is a symptom of people not being able to manage their finances properly and identify potentially destructive behaviours. This would push the solution for the problem to Education, how schools should help people in learning the skills necessary to both manage their money and notice when a certain behaviour they are about to engage in, or repeat one too many times, will produce a generally negative outcome for their mental and financial health.
And no, I'm not a fan of loot boxes. Never bought one and think they are mostly used by the publishers in a very bad, and silly, way.
> A new study led by a Michigan State University business scholar suggests customer-service workers who fake smile throughout the day worsen their mood and withdraw from work, affecting productivity.
And a +1 here. Would just add that we also need to look at the offer of product lines that Apple provides to better understand their decisions.
Also, IMO, people are becoming more and more desensitised, always expecting big leaps in innovation and specs and not noticing the small steps, cornerstones of the vision Apple has for its user's experience.
Going to potentially be controversial, but we need (might be a strong word here) genetic manipulation with strong ethical and humanist values attached to it (and a lot more knowledge).
If we are to deny natural selection its role, then we might want to still prevent people from passing on genes which effectively handicap them when they don't have access to certain facilities and technology. Prevention in this case is not eugenics, but gene manipulation/therapy.
Having said this, what we most certainly don't want is genetic standardisation (good path for extinction) and even the manipulation of genes, that seem to cause "problems" (today's problems might be tomorrow's cure), needs a deep understanding of implications, which at the moment we probably don't have.
P.S.: Hold the similar view regarding GMO in food.
That already happens sometimes: it's called IVF with PGD (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis). Before an embryo is implanted a cell is taken from it and tested for genetic defects.
It's an expensive and convoluted process, so it's only done when one or both of the parents are carriers of a serious genetic mutation.
> it's only done when one or both of the parents are carriers of a serious genetic mutation
I have friends who have done PGD simply to select the gender of their child. Once researchers identify reliable genetic markers for height and intelligence, expect PGD to become rapidly more popular among the upper class.
> For evolution you need physical separation. With our level of globalisation that's not going to work.
Global empires are nature's way to shuffle some genes around and reduce inbreeding. Then individual nations start to exploit the empire for their selfish benefit, everything falls apart and nature runs an iteration of competitive evolution for a change. Rinse, repeat.
For speciation you need some kind of separation, which does now sometimes happen within a generation (e.g. one social group refusing to date another social group), but is very unlikely to persist across many generations.
Evolution by natural or sexual selection within a single species can still occur.
It's a very complex issue, but my gut feeling is we should not allow germline editing on humans. It's a Pandora's box and the goal posts will keep moving with fundamental consequences to our species. Also like you say we are dealing with extremely complex systems, where uninteded effects might become apparent only generations later
3-D Secure doesn't always requests a 2FA code sent to your phone.
Most that I've used are fixed passwords (and they ask you for the character at certain positions) while others will ask you for personal information that is rather easy to obtain.
This is at least my experience. From the handful of cards I've used from different banks, only 1 used to send me a code via SMS.
Believe that the address validation only checks the numbers present in the address, not the rest of the text, at least that was what I read in some gateway's documentation. Imagine the level of what they check may vary.
This is of course if the merchant/gateway even cares about that level...
Going interplanetary is not so much because of Earth not being sustainable but more about survival of the species: extinction level events on Earth (and not talking about us making it a wasteland, but rather non-anthropogenic in origin ones) will be less likely to terminate our species.
Just because those companies or us as individuals don't need to pay for the future damage, doesn't mean that cost doesn't exist, and by not accounting the externalities, the consumption of said products is incentivised since they become "cheaper" than alternatives that are presented to the end user with a higher cost.