Resource scarcity is just one evolutionary pressure that can direct natural selection.

Consider bacteria, for example. Even if you place them in an environment with an inexhaustible supply of nutrients, if you add small amounts of antibacterial chemicals, you will end up breeding bacteria that are resistant to those antibacterials.

That's not really how it works though. Natural selection necessarily occurs whenever reproduction happens, it's just the evolutionary pressures and the traits that we end up selecting for that change.

Overwhelmingly English and German. Some anime stuff in there too, but I don't speak a word of Japanese.

Exactly this. I'd hold up Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart as an example of a book that's especially impressive in this regard.

The ideas woven into the story are universally accessible, so anyone who reads it can "get" what it's about, and it accomplishes this while still remaining an authentic expression of the author's lived experiences.

Probably nothing. Shipping containers are basically invisible to most people.

> since some cause health issues

The "some" is really putting in work there.

I guess if you used Uranium as a green dye I could see how that might cause some health issues.

No, everyone holds their bowels for just as long as they need to in order to get to a toilet without shitting themselves.

How long a person could hold their bowels is another story.

You're addressing arguments that I haven't made. Clearly, the author is making assumptions here, you can take issue with them if you wish. I'm simply pointing out that no appeal to emotion fallacy has been committed.

As I see it, the main assumptions the author makes are: A) that saving more childrens' lives is preferable to saving fewer, B) that redirecting more wealth to children's charities will save the lives of more children, and C) that using appeals to emotion can be an effective way to convince people to redirect more wealth to children's charities.

If all of these assumptions are true, then one can logically conclude that appeals to emotion can be used effectively to achieve preferable outcomes. That's the argument the author is making; you can agree or disagree with the premises, but there's no logical fallacy present there.

> Who on earth would want Windows or Android when you could have 5G delivering what its capable of. [sic]

I'm still not sure I understand. 5G is fast, yes, but it's still just a way of transmitting data. How is it a replacement for an OS?

Cloud computing is nothing new and it's nothing special, it's just someone else's computer.

An appeal to emotion fallacy would be something like, "I don't have an argument or evidence for this, but don't you just feel that I'm right?" This is not quite what the author is doing.

Instead, the author is presupposing that some bad thing (market externalities) exists, and then suggesting that consumers' emotions could be leveraged as a corrective force to that bad thing.

In other words, the author isn't appealing to emotion to make his argument, he's arguing that appealing to emotion can be an effective tactic for influencing human behavior, which I think is inarguably true.

> 5G will be the major computing platform of the late 2020s and 2030s.

Am I missing something? I thought 5G was just a faster cellular data spec. How is it a computing platform?

Here in the west, we've always had slower internet speeds than counties like China and South Korea, thanks to the fact that we let ISP companies run roughshod over us.

I feel like you're kind of missing the point of the article.

Whether the batteries have physical defects or not, they will need to be replaced eventually. The point of this article is to point out how Apple's design makes it almost impossible to do that, which will lead to more and more e-waste.