I agree, by 2100, the world will have stopped using fossil fuels without this statement. If they had any courage, or ambition, they would have said 2050. Even that wouldn't take too massive of a push. If you wanted to go on an JFK'esque level, you would shoot for 2030. That would be revolutionary.
Pray tell, what does that massive push look like, and be sure to list all the caveats that go with it.
then we should limit major choices, not bury young people in debt, unable to contribute to the economy (buy a house, car, etc.: manufacturing, construction, etc.) and instead it all goes into some bank ceo's pocket. how does that help anyone, besides ones plutocrat class sucking up so much and more and more each day. that doesn't trickle down morons, it just stays in a bank, while a middle class flush with cash spends most of it, actually generating jobs and a healthy economy
i don't really understand people who view life choices as a one sided thing. the range of choices available to you also reflect your society's values
some of you idiots will say if a guy only had a choice between walking off a cliff and walking into a furnace he should be blamed for wrongly choosing to commit suicide, poor characters, etc. what choices a person has before them is a reflection of the values of a society. and obviously, our society sucks, and is getting worse. cue the morons who bark "american exceptionalism" without fucking noticing that on all of the measures of what they consider american excpetional about, the usa is actually falling behind and slipping further
for example, you have greater social mobility as a poor immigrant in a nordic countries, than you do in the usa. you know, those countries with evil socialist universal healthcare and free/ low cost higher education
Because those Bently, Caddies, Bimmers, Mercs, Cessnas, GulfStreams, and the like are all simply conjured from thin air and given to those people who reach the 1% club as tokens of of their success. Yeeeep. No trickling there. None at all.
Nobody owes you a career... Absolutely 100% agreed. But I have an ethical objection to considering universities as jobs factories. They are not. They never have been. If you want job training, you can go to a VoTech and learn a marketable skill and that will give you a much better ROI, if that is all you are concerned with. I don't buy it that we can't afford to educate our young people. It is absolutely an attainable goal. You handwave it away by saying the world isn't fair. I agree. But that does not mean we should lie down and accept things that are possible to change. University of California used to be free. Think about that. And the same generation that benefited from free or near free college is remarkably callous towards students that suddenly need to pay $100k for a four year degree in-state. It doesn't have to be this way.
And why isn't it free anymore?
Whose income would you count? The parents or the student? What if the parents could afford tuition, but refuse to? Should the child be further punished for having parents that don't care about him/her?
So.... "the parents are now responsible for their ADULT children's bad decision making."? That doesn't sound like a bad precedent at all...
I actually have a take on this that helps make sense of all of the movies
These are cinematic re-tellings of the legend of Mad Max, who is more myth and legend than fact at the time of these re-tellings. This allows Max to always have the Falcon when the story starts, allows for him to survive the unsurvivable, etc, etc, etc. These stories may have had some kernel of truth at one point, but when they're being told, that kernel has been lost to time, and the stories become more fiction than fact.
You Americans been slowly turning your republic into a democracy over the last 100 or so years. That's why you're headed down the shitter.
There's an uncomfortable amount of truth to this statement.
Right now it is not a crime, BUT it should be.
Anyone in power to actually propose or advocate such ideas that are clearly, outright dangerous to our freedom and privacy rights should be treated as our worst enemy. Anyone who does that is clearly showing to be a dangerous inept several magnitudes worse than the worst terrorist. An enemy of the public that can only choose between exile or jail.
Yay freedom of speech?
Yeah, it basically conflates parts of the picking, sorting and packing process into a single job.
Though, it lacks one aspect of the old process, clearly visible there in your video. Old system allowed for quick and dirty picking during daytime, while sorting, packing and transport could be done as a separate process, 24/7. That automated picker dictates that all work must be done in daytime if one is aiming for optimum efficiency.
Cause nobody's gonna do any sorting at night in the field with all those insects rushing at the light and all that nectar in the air.
Nothing states that the machine in question can't just pick and dump into a collector. If there's no problems with it, a farmer could even pick at night, assuming said farmer can work out what that looks like from a navigation standpoint. Autonomous driving is an option, human monitored autonomous, or just throw a shedload of lights on the implement and let someone drive are all options for this.
Don't get me wrong, it's still evolutionary, but with a handful of changes (autonomy, a cab with lighting (and optionally climate control), or both), this could help a commercial strawberry farm produce significantly more fruit, assuming land is available and picking at night becomes a viable option.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand
