Those are skulltulas.

Just need to know if they’re heavier than a duck.

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.

“Based on an analysis we did for a large private-equity firm, we don’t actually see a scenario where in the next 10 years vertical farming will compete with field-grown at scale in North America,”

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.

I haven’t actually seen it, but I hear this was pretty awful.

That’s a weird argument.

It’s not an argument for going to prison, it’s a commentary on the deplorable state of American society.

Suicide is even cheaper, should we recommend that?

You think people haven’t considered and even exercised that option for that very reason?

incarceration is not an experience most people enjoy…

If the point of prison is to remove joy, then why not just have convicts play No Man’s Sky?

But seriously, should that even be the point? Isn’t the point of having a justice system a bit more nuanced than that? Shouldn’t our aim be to create a better society in general? Not simply through mere incarceration, but also education and mental health care?

Don’t we owe it to the members of society who have been failed by society to lift them up when possible to a place where they no longer need to subvert and disrupt society’s rules for the sake of their own survival? Don’t we owe it to the rest of society to provide a path to a productive life for so of its citizens, regardless of our previous unwillingness or inability to do so?

It’s definitely cheaper to live in jail than have to work at a job and pay rent. At least in the US it is.

You do first need to have said car.

This may no longer be true, but when I had my own Sam’s membership it was cheaper to get the business club card than the regular you imply is for the poors. They did zero checking that the business even existed, you only had to list a business name.

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.

Perhaps the most amazing stock of the year was Xcelera.com, formerly known as Scandinavia. Once a closed-end fund specializing in Scandinavian stocks, and then an operating company that owned a hotel in the Canary Islands, it made a small investment in an Internet company last year. Before it disclosed that investment, the family of Alexander Vik, the company’s chief executive, was given options to buy a million shares of stock, at a price of $3.25 each. The shares ended 1998 at $3.75, or $1.25 adjusted for two subsequent splits. They ended 1999 at $139.50, an increase of 11,060 percent. The Viks’ option position is now valued at $415 million.

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.

Half Life 3.

Dymo makes handheld label makers that are very affordable. Like $40. You don’t need a Rolls when a Corolla will get you there.

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.

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.