It's so funny, I've never done a cost-benefit analysis of having "good monitoring" and then still not being able to figure out what broke and needing to pull in someone who doesn't need the monitoring at all because they built the thing.
It's probably something along the lines of "Monitoring solves the problems you expect to have".
For example you don't even question when you see latency going up on some service, you can see DB load going up, and you either manually, or script out another instance starting up.
Monitoring all this stuff allows you to call the DBA/app team/etc 20 minutes sooner when you see some component screw off an you have no idea why. Hopefully that person on the app team puts in a new means of showing what the problem was if it ever happens again, then it turns into the first type of problem you never thing about again (or hope was actually fixed in the application).
Can we just have something that replaced the page with test datasets and Disney IP to poison the training data? Or maybe just embed it into the page itself, but hidden?
Gambling has a similar addiction profile to cigarettes and other drugs, so why not have the same kind of labels on every bet and app, something like, "FanDuel is legally required to tell you that sports gambling has been shown to cause massive financial losses and is a major cause of divorce."
I am also against specifically state sponsored gambling like the lottery. At least (non casino style day trading) investment in stocks has upside at all.
In terms of the biology of the brain, gambling is more similar to alcohol and opioids than to cigarettes.
But, yeah, informing people of the risk is critical. Most people develop addictions early in life without a full grasp of the danger to which they are exposing themselves.
Advertising and other marketing techniques and social pressures pull them into the behavior patterns that lead to addiction. Once the addiction is formed, it's usually too late at that point.
This is a huge issue. What's the point of doing replication studies (which we need) if folks just don't care about the result.
It's heavy handed, but I think every time a study fails to reproduce its results, every single published paper that uses that refuted study is notified, the authors get 6 months with a warning banner on top of the article, and if a correction is not submitted, it's automatically removed.
Science isn't supposed to be easy. We need a system that prioritizes high quality output, not volume.
