Nah, just a minor bump.

To get the hockey stick effect (like climate change), you need the new users actually feedback into improving the software they use. That doesn't happen much already much less with people with a focus on gaming.

I used to think like you until I read the headline, "Is Betteridge's Law of Headlines Correct?"

You have a misconception about the experiment. The point wasn't to study the fungus itself but rather the point of the experiment was to see if and how much it would attenuate cosmic radiation.

So everyone got pushed off to work retail while a few were able to make a lateral shift or take a major wage cut to an unskilled position. Given that there is no lateral shift to make here, it certainly sounds like everyone is SOL. When it averages out the "average base salary of a retail sales representative is $38,240" but "a retail sales representative at a luxury clothing brand will likely earn more than a similar role at Walmart". Which means most people are going to be closer to $30K if they are lucky.

The sound conclusion is that it will push more people into poverty.

What are you talking about? Did you even read the paper?!

Experimental Setup:

Conclusion:

I'm pretty sure if you asked any publicly traded corporation about any sort of fee or tax the answer is always going to be "they should be exempted". They are 100% driven by greed, so fuck 'em and do it anyway.

Technologically speaking, the bigger problem is getting people to Mars as they will be exposed to a HUGE amount of cosmic radiation.

The issue of the survivability on Mars is entirely moot if you can only deliver soon-to-be corpses.

The number of violent conflicts is only going to increase from now on. Climate change is only causing things to shift and our water management practices are not very good to start with.

While this is an option, reliability would go waaay down for multiple reasons.

Forget $207 Billion, they should invest in me instead because I would keep losing money through 2030 even if you only gave me $1 billion!

To be fair, it depends on the altitude of the space station. If the ISS was kept at an altitude of 4000 km then the vessel making a quick trip would be more likely to be struck because most of Earth's orbital debris is found below an altitude of 2,000 km. However, the ISS is kept at 400 km and it only becomes more risky up to that altitude.

So, while you are incidentally correct, it is not a mere matter of logical thinking that you present it to be.

You're not wrong but there are other passive options that could be more structurally robust like using several optical fibers to create a composite image. You could also use optical elements to radically compress and magnify a larger area. Both of these options minimizes the size of the area needed to transmit the light from outside to inside the capsule using components that require no resources to operate and are more mechanically robust.

I don't know if port windows a generally problematic in space capsule design but there are other options than just having a big hole that are equally reliable. I can only figure that it's not considered to not be a major design challenge but then again, here we are.

Non-crackable glass? /s
OK but seriously, since cost isn't a big deal, perhaps this might be a good application for transparent aluminum (aluminium oxynitride).