NolanSyKinsley t1_jcxa4k6 wrote

Why do articles repeat the same thing 3 times in a row with very slightly different wording all the time? In the sub title intro statement, in the bullet text of an image, and then again as the intro to the article where they FINALLY explain the acronyms that they should have used as the one and only explanation of it in the title description. I don't need to read the same thing 3 times in a row to get through the intro of an article, it is super annoying and feels like a school child trying to hit 500 words on their essay.


NolanSyKinsley t1_j8uva3j wrote

Really? What do you not like about their taste? Have you tried them just once or different brands? I have found some taste really stale and bad, like the ones you get in the shaker bottles from walmart, I used to just tolerate those on salads but buying it in bag form, over 2lbs, from reputable brands I have found they are really really good, like I can sit down with a serving or two and just munch on them. They kinda just taste like sunflower kernels but a little more delicate, and much less salty.


NolanSyKinsley t1_j6n9giz wrote

nope, just the microwave and toaster is enough, the toaster pulls over 10-12 amps itself, the microwave is 1kw at 120v so 8.4 amps, 18.4 amps sure will blow a 15amp breaker..

I have an old sunbeam toaster that draws 13.5 amps that I never use in my house because I can never be sure an outlet is isolated enough that I won't throw a breaker because it has another load on the circuit, and 1.5 amps sure isn't a lot of wriggle room on a 15amp breaker.


NolanSyKinsley t1_j6n8u0w wrote

That is in no way normal or up to code at all. Heaters are supposed to be on their own circuits so all of them can be on and be under the 15 amp rating of the circuit breaker, bathroom and kitchen are supposed to be on separate breakers as well, hell, even your kitchen outlets and lights are supposed to be on separate breakers.


NolanSyKinsley t1_j2cwxxw wrote

No, not at all, unless you count individual atoms themselves as structures, but even then it is not their structure but their field that emits the light. Blue iridescence on insects, butterflies and birds is created by microscopic structures, vanta black and this absorb all the light with their structure, all other colors are just pigments, the individual atoms emit the specific wavelengths of colors themselves regardless of how they are arranged in a structure.


NolanSyKinsley t1_j2cwn67 wrote

A texture that removes all color, and the absence of color is.... what's that? Oh, right, black. Butterfly wings are blue and iridescent, but they are not blue at all, they are actually just shiny, the blue comes from their structure refracting light, so to you "it's just a texture" and not a color? or can color be generated by a structure by manipulating light waves?


NolanSyKinsley t1_j2cnjp5 wrote

It's german, they do that with descriptions of singular items. My favorite is a word they use to describe little fat kittens that still have their tails pointed straight up in the air: Autodromkatzerl, which translates to Bumper Car Kitten.


Almost all of our english language is built upon building words with other words as well to form a singular concept describing a singular item, they just weren't english words, they were latin, greek, germanic, french, or any other number of languages we bastardized. Helicopter = Helix which means spiral and pteron meaning wing, helix becoms helic add a joining vowel, and shorten pteron to pter and tada! helicopter(although the word was initially coined in french), this goes for pterodactyl as well, pteron, meaning wing, and dactyl from daktulos meaning finger, through middle english became dactyl, you get pterodactyl, I.E. wing fingers because the wings are made up of what would trace to the hands of other species, it is literally flying by flapping its fingers and you can tell that just by the name!


Indistinguishable, in = not, or opposite of, and distinguishable. Distinguishable is also made of two words, distinguish the verb, and able the adjective that modifies the word to show we are capable of performing the verb so we say "indistinguishable" instead of "I am not able to distinguish that". It's all words made up of more words man, you just don't know it!


NolanSyKinsley t1_iy6f656 wrote

A walmart near me tried out robotic inventory scanners. When they first started people were kinda weirded out by them and would just stop and watch them. By about 2 weeks in everybody seemed to get used to them, but walmart canceled the experiments a few days later because it didn't actually help their operations in a meaningful way.


NolanSyKinsley t1_itjao8b wrote

One sprayer and the cost of its pesticide, and person to man it, you conveniently neglect the savings of using electricity vs chemicals and automation vs manned. Yea, I know those massive john deer machines are automated, but they are still manned. These are FULLY automated.


Fuel use? THEY ARE ELECTRIC. Renting 50 electric robots for 3 weeks VS continuously spraying your fields with chemicals you have to pay for. HMMMM which is better??? If you are in a region that supports crop growth, it also supports solar and you could literally power the operation for free after paying for the equipment.


Oh, and switch from fieldwork to transport to support your position BECAUSE YOUR POSITION HAS NO SUPPORT.


You are the farmer with a team and horses and a plow saying the guy with a steam tractor will never match them. You are a relic claiming to be the pinnacle.


NolanSyKinsley t1_itj4qqo wrote

50 robots of the current format can cover that area in 3 weeks, these robots work night and day, rain, wind, or snow. They could travel over land to new areas much faster than they process fields, their AI could even self navigate given proper clearances, and other farms can use them after your fields have been treated for the season for different crops, don't you see???. You act like these people don't live and work in the area they are designing the robots for, you act like they are idiots. You act like I didn't already tell you that their current machines can replace enough labor and pesticides to pay for themselves in 3-5 years for the acreage each robot covers and that is for a monoculture field rather than co-op ownage optimizing use so they don't sit idle most of the year. Stop resisting progress.


NolanSyKinsley t1_itilv2v wrote

The treatment doesn't need to be done daily, the robot can run 24/7, farms could easily have multiple robots, and the tech is twice the speed it was last year. The tech is new, give it time, this system can already replace enough labor to repay itself in 3-5 years and the tech is still only a few years old.