I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.
I ended up still wanting to dumb a scenario even if it is a bit mindready. I am doing a dirty trick of making a separate comment of tanking negative karma.
In the movie Idiocrazy, the protagonist at one point is faced with the challenge of fixing farming. The population is using energy drinks to water the crops. The protagonist thinks they would be better served by using water for irrigation.
-”you are killing the plants by poisoning them”
-”No but this has got electrolytes which is what plants crave” [points at massive billboard]
-”No, but if you would just try it...”
-”But we have always done it this way. Its common knowledge everybody knows that electrolytes are good for crops”
Being the head of agricultural sector in some sense makes that the most compent farmer around. But that is distinct from being right. I guess the current lingo fashion would be to say that instead of indirect arguments of reliablity talk about gear-level models on what is the impact exposing to water vs exposing to electrolytes. And in order to do this cleanly one needs to suppress the “knowledge” that electrolytes help plants.
Like working all your life around plants doesn’t guarantee good croppping working all your life with and towards autists doesn’t guarantee good attitude. The gear spinning doesn’t care where you have been lurking.