Raider5678

But it's the answer to the question. Farming will not be replaced with VR.

Agreed. About 45% delusional fools, 10% people who genuinely care about the government and are willing to research to decide the votes, and 45% people who simply don't care and will occasionally vote if they feel like it and it's convenient.

Of course, you're correct, however, I wasn't saying they were. The technology that will allow farming to be replaced with Virtual Reality will be more technologically advanced than the technology required to automate it. However, virtual reality will require human operators, and automation will not. I don't see businesses which achieve full automation investing in virtual reality afterward.

This was my point though. Virtual Reality isn't going to replace farming. Automation will.

Except not the cost for setting up a cross-continental broadband internet service... Also, 50 drones couldn't carry as much weight as a single tractor. Trust me. These things carry hundreds of tonnes at a time, and do it in a matter of hours. Drones make absolutely no sense to make, to expand it to africa, to set up broad band internet, and find a way to get enough computers and IT techs to Africa to help them make it, etc. If America was globally socialist, sure, this idea would make sense. Simply force the farmers to do it at gunpoint. But it's not. And we can't force farmers to do something that's going to bankrupt them because it's a terrible idea. The farming job can't be replaced with virtual reality.

Or automate it. Don't Gloucestershire have computers?

Grapes. What's the reality of farms?

Yes. They do.

I'm looking at it from the perspective that if the farmer can't afford to implement it in the first place, they're not going to go bankrupt trying to give people in third world countries jobs.

Won't happen. It'd be at least 1000 times cheaper to simply invest in making the drones automatically do that without human input. Reminds me, in California they raised the minimum wage up, and a guy showed up at a friend of mine's workplace. The guy from California harvested watermelons and had 500 workers. Since they raised the minimum wage again, he decided he was going to just automate the process. Spent almost $20,000,000 in research and development to create a fully automated watermelon harvester, and then fired virtually all of his workers. I suspect the same thing to happen to farm jobs throughout the country. Even in my area these major businesses have bought all the farmland, and they don't even hire anyone, they simply send out automated tractors, harvest all the food, and export it somewhere else...... VR won't make economic sense in the scenarios you're suggesting. Edit: For the story about California, a quick clarification. It's being gradually raised, which gave the owner time to figure out that a $20,000,000 investment now would be well worth it by the time it hit $15.

No, however take my word for it, whether they did or not they want you there in person. The head of my department is rather fond of meetings for some reason. Honestly, I think we spend more time in meetings then actually working some days.

I work for a company making software for them to track industrial quotas, mainly collecting data. My job requires me to be at work physically simply because it's a rule, not that I actually have to be to write the software.

I wish I didn't have to physically go to work, but this is hardly the case in my position.

Sigh. This world is sad. And we also have no free will. According to the book at least. Also according to that book, humans are more important than animals. Because of reasons? I like where the author tried to go with the book, but there were far too many assumptions simply made in order for him to try to like science to morality, such as what I state above, that humans are more important than animals. How can you scientifically prove that humans are more important than animals? His reason inside of the book is that because the majority of people believe it, it's true. Such as many of the other things, such as comparing one life which he describes as dismally poor, and another life as extremely well off and wealthy, and because the majority of people say the second life is better he says you can scientifically measure how moral something is based on that. How does that work though? I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but in my opinion, the Moral Landscape failed to really connect science to morality. Either way, this is a discussion we can have in another thread if you'd like, I'd be happy to join. It worked somewhat, except your responses were inside of my quote. I'll reply to some of them. First of all, just because something is still done doesn't mean it's not considered immoral. People are still murdered. Yes. But does that mean as a society we have decided Murder isn't immoral any more? Same goes with stealing and rape. Morality can't be measured any more than the public opinion of it.

Why does religion tie into it? I said I don't see why saying we should kill Babies increases the transfer rate of STI's, as per the OP. Not what the religious position is on it.

I fail to see how saying we shouldn't kill babies leads to the spread of STI's. This is a complete misrepresentation of the aim of evangelicals. 1. Not all evangelicals are the same. 2. This is not the goal of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, let alone all of them. 3. Many evangelicals don't even agree on what morality is, let alone who's adhering to it. From what I've seen the majority of the fight is aimed at trying to keep people from killing babies, and the idea that it's only the religious right is a flawed one. And while there are people who don't want people with STIs to be treated, don't want there to be safe sex info, and who oppose sex education, I'd say it's a completely different category then what the majority of them are fighting over, like abortion. It reminds me of a joke where a question asks "Have you ever convicted of a murder, been convicted of a hit and run, been convicted of a rape, or been convicted of a parking ticket?" One thing in the category, yes, the majority of people have done. Doesn't mean that all of those things are done equally. Abortion is where the vast majority of the fight is, and limiting access to Abortions is not causing the spread of STI's, it's not related. I'd imagine the lack of people practicing safe sex. Morality cannot be defined scientifically. No. Science deals with things you can measure. Morality can't be measured. People haven't abandoned "morality". They've changed their opinion of what it is. Rape is still considered immoral. Murder is still considered immoral. Stealing is still considered immoral. Etc.

It was not done by Rick Scott, however, if Rick Scott had even slightly wanted to prevent this, he could have. Hence, he definitely played a part in it being on the ballot. Governors have quite a bit of power, as well as often being the head of the political party in that state. Rick Scott approved it being on the ballot. If he as Governor, which he had the power to do, had decided to fight it, I highly doubt it would have been on the ballot, considering Republicans Controlled the Legislature and the Governor seat. Your link didn't even touch into the Amendment, and I see absolutely no reason it even pertains to what I said. I did not say Rick Scott approved more people to vote than others. I simply said that he played a part in restoring the voting rights to Felons. Unless you have evidence that Rick Scott opposed this, other than your own personal beliefs creating facts, I don't believe that Rick Scott fought the Amendment. I'm including several things. First of all, while there was the major outcry that Republicans were preventing Native Americans from voting, it was simply not true. Even Heitkamp, the Democratic Senator, pointed out that "while there have been some changes in North Dakota's voting laws, I want everyone to know that voting is still easy here." The media freaked out, claiming that Native Americans wouldn't be able to vote because they don't have a street address, they left out the fact that Native Americans can simply show a tribal letter and they'd be allowed to vote. Basically, the Democrats lied to everyone saying that Native Americans wouldn't be able to vote when they'd be able to vote the same way they were able to vote before. If anything, Democrats hurt the Native American voters more then Republicans because Democrats complained how they wouldn't be able to vote, while Republicans spent money to notify the Native Americans that they would, in fact, be able to vote. In both legal code, and actions, the Republicans are not preventing Native Americans from voting in North Dakota. In fact, the Supreme court even refused to overturn it, not because it was a Republican Majority, but because it did not, in fact, prevent Native Americans from Voting. Additionally, there were disinformation campaigns on facebook trying to discourage voters in North Dakota from voting if they owned an out of state hunting license, something that's an outright lie. Why would someone run a campaign like that? To keep people from voting by making them think they weren't allowed to. Additionally, unsurprisingly, a majority of hunters are Republican, so it would disproportionately affect Republicans. Now, as for the people who funded the add, it was the North Dakota Democratic NPL. Hence, this is why I ruled out North Dakota. You may continue to believe that but it doesn't make it true. This is not one of the darkest times in American history, far from it.

Still, he did play a large part in restoring voting rights to 1.4 million felons in Florida by getting it onto the ballot, something you massively complained about earlier. I see that as at least one good thing that he did. I agree largely with Ben Shapiro on Trump. Which is basically this.

Fair enough. Ironically, a study held found that only 38% of Americans think we're better off today than 50 years ago. 50 years ago we were fighting the Vietnam war, LGBTQ+ had absolutely no rights, there were race riots, racism was much worse, we didn't have computers, medical science was nowhere near as advanced, the standard of living was much lower, and the ability for us to learn anything we needed to at any moment(the internet) didn't exist. People are so pessimistic.

Seriously, it's not that bad. I mean, it's bad, but let's be realistic. I could name at least 100 times that have been far worse than this. Also, an update, I've reviewed several of the different areas that Democrats and Republicans are claiming voter suppression/fraud, and I've basically ruled out every state except 2 for MAJOR effects that could change who actually won: Florida and Georgia. Both of them appear to be leaning towards the fraud/suppression benefiting Republicans overall, however, that's not to say that there weren't definitely attempts on both sides to do those things, particularly in Florida. Meaning I've ruled off since last time: North Dakoda, which had Voter Suppression from the Democrats, but probably not enough to have significantly changed the election. Texas, which had Voter Suppression from Republicans, however nowhere near enough to change the election. There were issues with the voting machines saying the votes were cast towards the wrong candidate, however for multiple reasons I'm saying that's just because the state government is too lazy to update them, not that they're leaning one way or another. The media reported mainly on the fact that those who voted for the Democratic Senator had their ballots show up as Republican, however, when you look into it ballots cast for Ted Cruz also showed up as cast for the Democratic Senator. Additionally, because the screen at the end told them very straightforward "Congratulations on supporting candidate X", it was very obvious when there was an error and those were simply accounted for when the votes were counted.

It wouldn't be a problem if you took thousands millions of accurate measurements and used massive amounts of computing power. Now. Which lottery is going to let you do that?

"The 2018 Electorate Wasn’t All That Different. It Just Voted Differently." If you're going to claim that, don't cite an article that says the exact opposite thing in the title and then goes in to say that what you're saying is false. The article goes in to say the composition of the voters was roughly the same. I.E.1/4 this group 3/4 this group, etc. However, those groups did not simply vote the same way, they voted much differently. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen such a shift(in the multi millions) of votes.

You're implying the complete abolishment of the way the Senate was designed and created. Not "merely" changing a small thing. If you don't like it and would like to change it, that's fine. But do realize it is a major part of how our democracy was created and is a protection against majority rule. Fair enough, I wasn't looking at it like that, and looking at it now I can see that from 2010 - 2016 the elections always over-represented Republican holdings, a statistical improbability.

And the majority of the Democratic population lives in two states: New York, at 19.8 Million people, and California, 39.54 million people. That's how the Senate works. It's also exactly how the Senate was intended, hence the fact that the population doesn't matter for the number of Senators a state gets. However, I suspect we simply disagree. I don't like the idea of what's known as mob rule, where the majority get their voice heard and minorities are ignored. Regardless of which side it benefits. As such, I support the way our Legislative branch is created.