"Its a shame we dont have vast areas that receive lots of sun where almost nothing lives and any disadvantage would be extremely minor? Can you think of any land in Australia we could use? its a real doozy??That would create a lot of jobs for people in the outback."
Unfortunately your own claims are refuted by physics, the government, and the noted by renew economy -
https://reneweconomy.com.au/farmers-shouldnt-have-to-compete-with-solar-companies-for-land/namely: "But right now, the state and territory governments are leading Australia’s clean energy revolution, rolling out crucial “Renewable Energy Zones”, often
within or near agricultural regions. Agricultural land is flat, cleared, and sometimes situated near existing power infrastructure and distribution networks.
Such conditions are ideal for solar farms, which can require up to 2-3 hectares per 1 megawatt (MW) of solar energy."
Indeed, if you build a solar farm thousands of kms away from other infrastructure, you need to build massive power lines (huge cost), and you lose power overtime, because the lines are not superconductors (basic physics). So in your head, it makes sense for aboriginals in the outback to maintain solar farms, but in practice, not so much.
"Cars cost more than horses, do you ride a horse around town? Of course not! (probably)."
Cars are used instead of horses, because they cost less on an all-in basis compared to horses. Indeed, a car has 200x the Horsepower of a horse. Most cars are less than 200x the cost of a horse. Not to mention a horse can generally transport 1 person, short distances. A car can transport 5+ people, large distances. The overall trend in society is to use technologies which are better, and cheaper (on an all in basis) compared to the previous one. Otherwise there is no mass-adoption. If a car cost 1bn, almost noone on the planet would use it, and would still be using horses. You can see this play out because you can argue helicopters and private jets are better than cars, but almost noone uses them due to cost.
"It was triple the price to buy a new blu ray DVD player than it was to buy a VCR player. It was $15 to buy a 1G USB drive in the year 2000. You could get a box of 10 floppy disks for $10 at the same time."
Your arguments are so bad. Blu ray quality was far superior to VCR. 10 floppy discs have a storage of ~15megs, compared to your $1g usb drive. You would need 700 floppy discs, costing $700 as a valid comparison.
(20min delay)