>>3842227>Wahhhhh I have no counter argument but still can't admit I was wrongSorry, who's coping?
>>3842230>It's fine to compare F1 drivers to taxi driversOh, so how do you think Michael Schumacher would get on with "the knowledge" test? How do you think Abdul would get on at Spar in a 2020 Ferrari F1 car?
Neither would last 10 seconds, does that mean they are both bad drivers?
>>3842233>Architects and children's book illustrators both draw for a living, so they have comparable jobs.>Picasso and Dave's painting and decorating both paint for a living, so I can compare my lounge that Dave painted to Picasso's weeping womanLol. Nice argument, are you going to double down and agree with the above 2 examples and make yourself look truly moronic? or are you going to admit you were wrong? Or are you going to claim that photographers are a very special category and regardless of how diverse their intended end result is, they are all directly comparable?
Dumbass goof
>>3842238>Modern technology doesn't reduce waste or improve productivity, all you need is "adequate technology"Everything was adequate when it was new you fucking idiot.
you're wrong, take farming lettuce for example; traditionally you can expect to sell 50% of what's grown, as the other half is turned into mulch due to pests\lack of shelf appeal, you also need to cover fields in fertiliser and pesticides that runs off into local water supplies, and drive tractors for miles to plant, turn the soil, plough, harvest, spray, etc. and finally you have to ship them from the middle of fuck nowhere to cities, you need to leave fields fallow every few years, growing is only available in season meaning you have to import to meet demand, etc.
Modern vertical farms produce the same amount with about 5% losses instead of 50%, can be grown year round, don't pollute local water or drain the soil of its minerals, take up around 1% the space, can be built in cities removing transport inefficiency, etc.
