Oh, yeah. The rational actor theory. But by the same postulates that underly that theory there should be no human being who eats unhealthy, boozes or gambles excessively, or picks fights he obviously can't win.

I have an alternative theory which states that going by actual behavior most people discount their future welfare to zero when there's an immediate reward, even a trivial one. It's almost impossible to resist an immediate burst of pleasure a nasty habit's got you hooked, whether it's a relaxing smoke or that glow of self-righteousness you get when you act on your bigotry.

People will literally kill themselves for a little short-term reward. Forgoing a little profit is nothing compared to that. If you look at places where segregation was historically sanctioned, you'll see you're entirely right: it's economically irrational. That didn't stop people from doing it.

Well, duh, Crash the gates of a capital district military base and you won't live long enough to get a chance to shoot back.

There's also the matter of choosing the watch size and the strap, which will involve trying the watches on. Just handing them over on demand would probably lead to a lot of requests for exchanges.

Thanks, I did so enjoy the unintended irony of your post.

More likely a selfie.

Except of course when we lie helpless on the operating table, or aboard a jumble jet being flown into the Alps.

Considering that nuclear power is the safest form of power the world has ever known, I'd say it's worthy of recognition for offsetting carbon more than anything else. To borrow a phrase, "It's the energy density, stupid."

There's a reason why China has 30 nuclear plants under construction, while the US just approved its first new plant in 30 years.