It is stupid to plant almonds in California and if things get really bad we can cut those trees down. If we have to cut our alfalfa, cotton and sugarcane use, it will affect us but not wipe us out. Rice is an issue - we really need it despite the water costs so that might cause some problems.
Rice is grown in northern California, where water is less of an issue.
So California passed laws saying the farmers had to use their water or lose it. So farmers use it. If we instead allowed the farmers to sell the water then the most efficient users of water would buy it.
It's true that market inefficiencies are an issue here.
Sometimes you want to prioritize agriculture over an efficient market. If you mess it up, people die. Many other regulations are the same way: they alter the free market. It's illegal to efficiently sell your services as a hitman, no matter how profitably.
Trenches would be a good solution in that case, except that Ukraine doesn't have sufficient troops to man them adequately.
No one has enough troops to man the trenches adequately. That is why the mobile army army will win: they attack where the enemy isn't. The mobile army will crash through the trenches like a blitzkreig through the Maginot Line.
Cheap drone defenses are here. If you don't have them, you will lose as quickly as Venezuela. Ultimately they're just a smart form of artillery.
Democrats could have run someone with brains and was a leader and won.
Not likely. As long as the person isn't entertaining like a reality TV star, they will lose to the person who is a reality TV star.
Of the 4,454 business leaders surveyed, only 12% saw both lower costs and higher revenue,
Tell me more about this 12%
No, that's not how that works. If you make a claim, you have to back it up.
There is no law like that.
If you want to know something, the burden is on you to find out. You can try to assign it to someone else (which is what you have done), but if they don't rise to the occasion, it doesn't mean they are wrong, it means you don't know the answer.
If you say, "The burden of proof is on you!" and they roll their eyes and walk away, it doesn't mean you are right or they are right. It means the issue is undecided.
So what? This isn't a court of law.
Good job, you figured it out. I support your search for continuing to figure it out.
Serious question: Do insects experience? Do cells experience? (Note that they do have short term memory and change their response to stimuli in real time.)
If that were a serious question, you would familiarize yourself with the debate and research on the topic dating back to Descartes. But I think you lied, it wasn't a serious question.
Funny. There's an equal argument to be made that the burden of proof is on the people who think that consciousness is real.
Burden of proof is something that is assigned in a court of law.
Back in the real world, the burden of proof is on the one who wants to know the answer. If no one proves it, then we won't know.
"Here's something to think about: How come you never see a headline like `Psychic Wins Lottery.'" -- Comedian Jay Leno
