It sounds like we agree. To the extent we're just talking about electricity costs, then it's true that easily written, but inefficient code may indeed externalize these costs to the extent that users are unaware of the added power consumption, or that the user herself does not pay the full cost of that electricity.

But these electricity costs struck me as only a small part of the broader point I was responding to, which is what I framed the point the way I did.

I contend that squandering the work and infrastructure involved in converting natural resources into electricity is the main problem with modern consumer software development. Any user's (lack of) perception of waste is irrelevant. The scope of the problem is not any individual literally paying a couple dollars more on their electric bill, but rather it's that gigawatt hours are literally being burned away because software developers who know their code will be running on machines the world over can't be assed to spend a little more time learning to practice their craft correctly.

There is no broader point than converting natural resources into societal infrastructure. Be a responsible member of society. Don't obstinately ship wasteful code. I understand if you legitimately don't know any better, but if you're part of the community that's constantly writing blog posts about computers being so fast that its OK to burn the end users' CPU and storage just so you don't have to spend a couple more minutes thinking about what you're doing, you're adding harm to the world.

Again. I think we agree. You're just making a different point than the one I was making. I was making a technical but hopefully still constructive point about what is an externality and what is not.

You seem more focused on making a case against shipping inefficient code. And you're point is a good one. It's just a little difficult to suss that out since you're framing it as standing in opposition to my related, but very different, observation about externalities.