bbddg

Okay, maybe I should have said "access to medical treatment shouldn't be decided by ability to pay".

I think you need a citation for that last point. This is the exact logic that got us the 2008 crash.

I think there's plenty of room for innovation but we should start from the principal that everyone gets full access to medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.

No I would argue for a single payer system like Medicare for All.

I'd call this liberal-communism. We just have to put our trust in benevolent billionaires to solve our problems for us with no oversight or democratic controls whatsoever. The idea that this is anything but an attempt to squeeze even more money out of the system for quite literally the richest people on Earth is naive. In Ohio, 10% of Amazon employees are on food stamps[1] while Bezos is worth over 100 billion dollars.

[1] https://www.policymattersohio.org/press-room/2018/01/05/more...

I think for most insurers it's more profitable to provide less service and preventative care for two specific reasons. One, once a person is 65 they are covered by Medicare and are the government's problem. Two, if someone under 65 does get seriously sick or injured, chances are they're going to have to leave their job or get fired. With most people getting insurance through work, the insurance company isn't on the hook anymore either.

You think the laws of physics don't apply to software engineering?

Yes, that is another way to interpret those facts. It's just terrifyingly arrogant and irresponsible.

This is a horrible thing for privacy but would information collected this way even be admissible in court? They could use it to inform investigations but I think they would have a very hard time trying to use this information to prosecute.

> Citation? I can't imagine they would use little or none unless they were farming something specific, like rice, which can grow under water or if it's grown indoors.

I don't really have a source for that more than anecdotal evidence. I've been involved with local farms that don't use any pesticides, however they were on the scale of ~5-15 acres. On a commercial scale it's probably not really possible. And organic food you'd buy in a supermarket is definitely not grown in this way.

The link you provided also only mentions two types of organic pesticides when there are thousands of USDA approved organic pesticides. I'm sure there are some USDA Organic pesticides that are just as harmful if not more so than some conventional pesticides but that's really just an argument for better USDA regulations.

>So I'm having trouble finding the study I read a few years back but it essentially found that large, centralized farms are the most efficient because our transportation has gotten so good and many plants grow better in specific climates versus growing everything locally. So if you have enough scale then centralized, huge farms seems to be the way to go.

I'm sure that large, centralized farms are most efficient in the short term. But long term effects on food production and soil could offset that. If in 50 years the soil is nutritionally drained and farms have to continue to pump more nutrients in then the cost and effeciency is going to drop. [1][2]

I think near-term, some combination is required because the level of food production needed is so high. Long-term, incorporating more sustainable practices into commercial scale farms or moving production into greenhouses like you mentioned is a better idea.

I'll add that after doing more research today, the label "Organic" doesn't mean better for the environment. That much is now clear to me. However, sustainable farming practices that can usually be found a small-local farms and backyard gardens are more environmentally friendly. Though scaling that for worldwide production is a difficult problem.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4552827/ [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20160305010056/https://nature.be...

Interesting link, I'm admittedly not that educated on this. However, not all organic farms use more pesticides. Some hardly use any pesticides at all.

What is the most sustainable and ecologically friendly way to get food then? Local farms, farmers markets, or growing your own food seems like the best but I don't think that's sustainable for the whole population.

I try to almost exclusively eat organic products. It's not really about the taste or even much about my own health. The real benefit is to the environment where the plants are grown. The overuse of herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics can destroy the natural ecology of an area.

I've always wanted an e-reader that could do comics in full color. Kinda niche I guess.

I think we'll eventually get to that point as well. We might even need some form of base salary for everyone. But until we get to that point I think we're gonna see a transition to more creative work. Design, art, music, movies, ect. are all things that will probably take the longest for computers to get as good at as humans. Even when computers do get better at creative work, I think there will still be a large market for art created by humans and not some AI.

YouTube will only show ads for videos that either use copyrighted content in some way (usually music) or are videos by a YouTube partner and they have a deal with Google to split ad revenue for the video.

This video would never have ads on YouTube.