Wowsers!

You've both missed the point of his friend's "issue" with "why a woman would want a truck".
You actually managed to hit the nail of his friend's logic right on the head but failed to connect the dots.

Why would a woman want a truck?
Women don't need to "carry big heavy things" - that's what they have men for. With their trucks.

That's EXACTLY right.
Because women have men to do such chores for them OR they have "no such need" and thus do not "own any such vehicle".

It's the part of that whole door-opening, heavy-things-lifting, unscrewing jars, walking on the side of the side-walk facing the street etc. etc. etc. life-long training for men - instigated by the Ladies of 19th century aristocracy whose ideal in life was to marry-up or mistress-up as high as possible while keeping the lower-statured competition down with expensive fashion and ridiculous rules such as which fork to use with which food.
Times and (some) fashions slowly changed but silly rules became culture, good behavior and common sense.
In past generations' defense, how could they have known about trucks and similar marvels of the modern age?

How many "gender differences affect the experiences" papers can we find that have been rejected because all the authors are male?

And would we even hear about those on account of such "research" being highly corrected for political correctness?

I mean...
I know a guy with a masters in "gender studies" whose ideas about women boil down to "they get ahead by giving head" (exact words were "by sleeping ahead").
At this very moment his Facebook page has the following joke: Domestic violence is when your wife won't give you any and won't let you have any from others.
He is also rather successful in art and culture work, popular with women, once had a suspended sentence for breaking the other guy's limb and has been known to publish on his Facebook page "funny" songs about his real life friends "playing with children".

You mean nobody's pushing for more women in science, thus trying to correct for gender bias science-wide instead of doing it on paper-by-paper basis? Really?
Hmm... Must be because women are actually NOT underrepresented in hard sciences and there is nothing to correct for.

Hmm... Something seems fishy about that line of reasoning... can't quite put my finger on it though.

"Blind" evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as bias is now not obvious, and reviewer doesn't know that it is a paper from a racially biased scientist - paper gets published, along with all future papers by said scientist, raising his credibility as a scientist.
Who can now even quote his earlier work and further build on his racial theories, or allow others to quote his "research" and build their own racial theories based on it.

And the best part is - now he knows that he should HIDE his bias in order to move forward.

Non-blinded evaluation:
Scientist A has a racial bias and his paper shows it.
Scientist A's paper doesn't get published due to the bias shown, he is informed of it, so he either "corrects" the paper and submits it again under another title OR he pays close attention that it does not SHOW in the future.

He doesn't exclude the bias. He can't. It's inherent to his view of the world.
He just "corrects" for it using politically correct terms and similar tools.
Say... writing "impoverished urban youths tend to be criminally inclined" instead of "blacks are thieves".

BUT... as he is now known for racial bias, his papers get additionally scrutinized regarding such bias.
And hopefully, they get rejected on that account.

And since we can associate people with other people and places, his colleagues and his university ALSO get additional scrutiny on account of being closely related to a known racist.

Some of my favorite people ever are 20th-centurists! Plus I was born in that century!

No.
There IS a chance of forming an informed opinion that anything posted under that banner is usually mostly crap.

Chances for unbiased, non-sensationalistic, click-bait, flame-war-inciting troll-posts from Gaw*retch*ker Media ARE very close to zero though.

âoeThe word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.â

Some Einstein guy said that about a year before he died, back in 1954.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2...

I am guessing here but I fear two things are limiting this picker to what it is now.

1 - the cost of the thing makes it worth ONLY IF you have a guy doing the sorting while it picks, thus eliminating off-site sorting jobs.

2 - It needs daylight to tell ripe (red) strawberries from unripe (green) ones, leaving the unripe ones for later picking.

1 is an issue of scale and upfront costs, so money fixes that BUT at the cost of favoring large monopolies.
2 is a technical issue. Which may be easily solvable - but with the next generation of he picker.

Like you said. A handful of changes may be needed.

Sure... but I was just illustrating the main direction the whole thing is going in.
It is a very skippable step in the process. Just like landline phones in Africa.

Or like the way schools no longer teach calligraphy and penmanship and kids skip all of that 1970s and 1980s and 1990s and early 2000s computer stuff and rush straight into NOW.
Stuff changes, people adapt to new stuff or adapt new stuff to themselves.

Ergo, former pickers are now packers. Do they dream a dream of a life of a packer for their children?
I doubt that.
They are probably not sending their kids to "packer schools" no more than they are sending them to work in the fields like THEY were forced to back in the '50s and '60s.

HFCS 55 - one used in sodas, is 55 parts fructose, 42 parts glucose.
Sucrose - plain sugar, is 50 parts fructose and 50 parts glucose.

Our brains only measure the glucose intake, cause that is the sugar we start burning the moment it hits the bloodstream. We even absorb it directly through the oral cavity - hence oral glucose gel for diabetics.
When we hit optimal glucose the brain tells the body it had enough.

So, if optimal glucose is (some) 100 parts, that means that using sucrose, one would take in 100 parts of fructose and 100 parts of glucose.
To get to the same level of glucose satiety (those same 100 parts) with HFCS 55, one would take in 131 parts of fructose for every 100 parts of glucose.

Then all that fructose, as Al Green puts it, gets taken to the liver.

What is the final workplace for those math students?

Around these parts (Bosnia) it tends to be teaching. Which is once again traditionally a female-centric profession.
Half my math teachers in elementary school, high school, at university were female.
I have a cousin (female) who is a math teacher.

On the other hand...
Having started electro-engineering, quitting that for work, taking up CS later...
In both those cases female to male ratio was about... 1 to 15-20.

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.

Ah yes... Famous last words of those with no arguments apart from repeating that black is white.
And then you go "If people only ate more blah-blah-blah"... which is AGAIN just ignoratio elenchi.
Babbling about irrelevant points cause you have no leg to stand on.

You came to "people should eat more nuts", in a topic about automated strawberry pickers, over a fallacious argument about wages, which you have related to pizza.
That large thing on the horizon you no longer see? That was the topic. You are out at sea, lost and confused.

And in conclusion all you offer is "Nah-ah. You is wrong. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!!!"

BTW... how can you know if my argument is "fallacial [sic] at best" if you don't read until the end?
Maybe I completely change my mind by the end?

Bah... give my best to the sharks.

I already explained above why strawberries are not food but an edible luxury item, AND gave you a HIGHLY comparable example of almonds.
Both need to be farmed, both are actually really expensive to produce, both use up a lot of water and land...

Only difference being that you can scale down the price of strawberries easier by adding cheap labor while more pickers won't make almonds cheaper because a tree is not a vine, and because the cost of picking is practically non-existent for almonds while cost of planting vines is not comparable to a cost of planting and nursing trees.

And the fact that you are refusing to acknowledge the difference between a MEAL like pizza or burger off of which you can live and work just fine, as many do - and a luxury food item which is basically water and a small amount of sugar and fiber...

That makes you either delusional, dishonest or both. And your "argument" is either nonsense or a strawman. Well... it's actually both, but most strawman are.

What's next? Comparing chocolate to bacon? How about cake and water?
They should all do you just fine - as none of those are produced in the same way nor do they have similar nutritional values nor do they cost the same to produce OR purchase.
I KNOW! How about comparing apples and oranges?

This whole part is just one big ignoratio elenchi, a false analogy and a strawman where you try to present different actions, all with different costs as if they are one and the same.
Hint: IT'S WHAT YOU ALREADY DID IN THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT.

You do realize that you compared laboring in the fields with "buns have to be thrown out if stale"?
And then you dot your list of nonsense with a non sequitur.
What? Are you going down a list of fallacies, checking off one by one?

YOUR ANALOGY OF FAST FOOD INDUSTRY WITH FIELD LABOR IS FALSE - WHICH DESTROYS THE BASIS OF YOUR WAGE ARGUMENT.

You can't compare fast food that gets produced year round, 9 to 5, in malls and restaurants - to sunrise to sundown labor in the fields, during a very short period when strawberries are ripe.
Nor do you have to plant a pizza and wait for it to grow, water it, keep it safe from pests for months...
Nor can you hire 500 workers to make that pizza faster - you know... the way more pickers pick the pickings pretty post-haste.

Digging a ditch is difficult. Does that require skilled labor?
How about lifting heavy things?

Nice obtuseness though. Really.
Or are you now making fun of people working in the fields?
"If it were so hard to keep your back bended the whole day, there'd be a school for that. Har-har-har! Ow! My carpal tunnel!"

Not a single "point" you make makes any sense, as you are talking out of your ass.
The story is about people moving on to BETTER jobs. Not necessarily better paid jobs. Wage is not a single measure of a job.
Try working in a field for a day and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work done inside.
Try working on a farm and compare that to a similarly or worse paid work in a city.

Also, the story is about a specific crop. Not just any crop. And certainly not about pizza.
And it is about a technological solution for planting and harvesting that crop NOT because that would be cheaper.
There are high initial costs and if you think that maintenance of robotic pickers will come cheap then you haven't been paying attention.
But because there are now better jobs for unskilled workers out there due to which there is a lack of available workforce - that makes machines which cost around 100k a pop seem affordable.

And did you even look at what that picker does? It's turning fieldworkers into assembly line workers.
Sitting and sorting and packing sunrise-to-sunset is a lot easier than hunching down all that time.
BETTER JOBS. Not better paid jobs.

Just to make it clear - we ARE just shooting the breeze here.
       

It doesn't have to be.

We eliminate cost of living by paying people's basic needs (food, water, clothing, living quarters, heating, hygiene, health, communication) - those things we pay for instantly become free.
Correct the list anyway you want - things that we end up providing ALL of the people with, will no longer be marketable (as everyone can have them for free) AND if we're employing robots to provide those things that scales up until the cost is no longer existent.

First batch of "free stuff" might carry a cost. Second will be cheaper. Third even more...
Until it disappears somewhere far behind the decimal point - because robots.
And not only free... The fact that we can save both items and money - we won't be able to give them away.

Aaaannd... There goes economy.
If we give EVERYONE free money AND we replace them with robots that are effective enough to provide the raw material or the finished products everyone needs - supply and demand kills the economy.

A fad diet where enough people stop eating bread for a few days would suddenly cause huge stockpiling of wheat.
If we are still using money for that resource, i.e. we still run it like an economy and not a government provided service, market dies at that point.
And brings down with it anything related to it. Stuff like money and government and stuff like that.

Cause we're talking about BILLIONS of people.
We can't have a partial basic income only in some countries and not in others - unless we want to promote inequality while ruining people's lives on both sides of the in-equation.
Cause instead of equality we would create a miserable privileged class, and a slave class. Like what Qatar and Kuwait have done.
And they don't even have a full basic income per se... just a crapload of free stuff and privileges.

Robots don't have to completely replace humans as long as they replace ENOUGH humans.

If at that point we are still trying to pretend that it's an economy and not a government subsidy - economy dies.
Make it an outright government subsidy... it either ends up as Qatar or as USSR. Neither of which is a good thing.
One doubles (or balloons it up even more) the population of the country by importing personal slaves - other makes everyone stand in bread lines.
Both would destroy a country from inside. Bread lines probably less - it's easier on one's morale to be hungry than to be a slave owner.

Which brings us to the crux of the problem - we can't have both the basic income AND robots making everything at the same time.
It is one or the other.

Both of those at the same time kill economy, money, moral values...

Actually... There might be a surge in people actively looking FOR that kind of work.

We ARE still the same old hunter gatherers.
Our bodies like the outdoors and physical work. Our brains love it when we work with our hands.

Make it no longer an issue of economic status and you might just end up with highly educated garbage collectors, short order cooks, cleaners, gardeners, janitors, couriers...
Heck... You got that now to some extent with people organizing themselves to clean up parks or riverbeds.
And let's not even go into all those hobbies.

We NEED to have stuff to do.
We get sick if just sit around on our asses the whole day. Or we start doing stupid and dangerous things.
Idle hands and all that jazz...

And as we run up that population ladder we'll need even more stuff to do just to keep us from doing stupid things like killing each other.