I’m not imagining any problems. The difficulties I’ve outlined are genuine issues that have to be addressed. I think you’d be surprised to learn how much difference there is between a thing existing and it actually operating efficiently.
I’m not imagining any problems. The difficulties I’ve outlined are genuine issues that have to be addressed. I think you’d be surprised to learn how much difference there is between a thing existing and it actually operating efficiently.
Vertical farming usually uses LED lighting, not direct sunlight.
That’s one method of bringing"sunlight" to plants. Another would be to grow them outside.
And I think the idea is that once the water is present on a given level it gets recirculated and reprocessed there, so it wouldn’t need much additional pumping.
Even if all you do is pump all the water from the floor of each level to the ceiling of the respective level, you’ve done the exact same amount of work as pumping all the water for the top floor back to the roof in the first place. Only you’ve done it with a hundred pumps and a hundred times the points of failure and repair rate as a single pump for the entire building.
You’d be so much farther ahead to just install a reservoir on the roof that gets filled by a single pump and let gravity feed the lower floors. Much the way we already do for flat farming.
And then you’ve got to make up for the inefficiencies lost in planting and harvesting. Vertical farming brings nothing to the table except a smaller footprint in a world where that’s not a real advantage.
A far better use of empty office buildings would be to convert much of the space into full-time living space.
The problem is a constant fight against gravity. You’ve still got to pump the water effectively to the top of the building every day. And there’s still the issue of getting sunlight to the plants.
The question really becomes whether it’s more economical to just use traditional irrigation techniques upstream and ship the produce in vs converting a skyscraper into a very inefficient farm space.
Early Access karma whoring.
Maybe it’s because I am a native english speaker but your reply is offensive and embarrassing to native English speakers around the world. You can do better, America. You just have to try.
Maybe it’s because I am a native english speaker but I read this as a pledge to murder all homeless people by cutting them in half 🤔
It doesn’t work because, as pointed out by another commenter, wealth does not “trickle down”. It only accumulates. This has been demonstrated to be a basic function of wealth and the minute you begin to think about it, it becomes obvious that having more resources makes it easier to gather more resources.
Now, here’s the thing. I’d say you would be sharing those winnings with the original winner unless you prevented them from getting the ticket
The January 2nd Powerball draw was not won by anyone and paid $39M.
That’s plenty of seed money to invest in Google, Bitcoin, et al with perfect knowledge of stock trends. Even if it’s only short term knowledge due to breaking from the original timeline, you could easily grow your investment into the billions overnight.
That’s not so much losing your home as it is having it forcibly purchased from you at a fair market price. At least in theory.
They weren’t.
I feel like that conspiracy is too smart for the CIA
That’s exactly what they want you to think!
Capital-F Faith is directly contrary to science and reason. It's believing things to be true without question or proof.
It's worse than that. It's believing things despite contrary evidence. It's why you can never win any "debate" with believers. They literally believe that you telling them they're wrong proves that they are right.
You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did.
I did no such thing.
We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Refer back to my example about covid case reporting.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn't even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn't have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn't apply. You can't just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don't have any, then you don't even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It's entirely possible that you're correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you'll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it's true.
You clearly don't recall watching jpegs load on dialup internet. It could literally take minutes to load a decent sized image on 14.4 modems.
First, I didn't present anything.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It's an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
Sure, but all you have is assumptions
Isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?
As with anything, you can only work with the data you actually have.
key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
Just because more is reported doesn't mean more isn't also happening. In fact, one could reasonably expect reporting to go down as a percentage of incidents due to ordinary citizens not expecting sex workers to be involved in trafficking since sex work is now legal. That the number goes up after the stigma is removed seems to strongly indicate a correlation with a rise in actual trafficking.
You would turn down free bread sticks and $7M? At least eat some bread sticks.