Those are skulltulas.

Just need to know if they’re heavier than a duck.

I’m not imagining any problems. The difficulties I’ve outlined are genuine issues that have to be addressed. I think you’d be surprised to learn how much difference there is between a thing existing and it actually operating efficiently.

“Based on an analysis we did for a large private-equity firm, we don’t actually see a scenario where in the next 10 years vertical farming will compete with field-grown at scale in North America,”

Vertical farming usually uses LED lighting, not direct sunlight.

That’s one method of bringing"sunlight" to plants. Another would be to grow them outside.

And I think the idea is that once the water is present on a given level it gets recirculated and reprocessed there, so it wouldn’t need much additional pumping.

Even if all you do is pump all the water from the floor of each level to the ceiling of the respective level, you’ve done the exact same amount of work as pumping all the water for the top floor back to the roof in the first place. Only you’ve done it with a hundred pumps and a hundred times the points of failure and repair rate as a single pump for the entire building.

You’d be so much farther ahead to just install a reservoir on the roof that gets filled by a single pump and let gravity feed the lower floors. Much the way we already do for flat farming.

And then you’ve got to make up for the inefficiencies lost in planting and harvesting. Vertical farming brings nothing to the table except a smaller footprint in a world where that’s not a real advantage.

A far better use of empty office buildings would be to convert much of the space into full-time living space.

When you have an enlarged amygdala, everything is scary. Ask any conservative what they fear most and they will never finish.

The problem is a constant fight against gravity. You’ve still got to pump the water effectively to the top of the building every day. And there’s still the issue of getting sunlight to the plants.

The question really becomes whether it’s more economical to just use traditional irrigation techniques upstream and ship the produce in vs converting a skyscraper into a very inefficient farm space.

What about Sammy Davis Jr?

Early Access karma whoring.

No, but it is raising some alarm bells.

No, but I found Waldo.

“Found my new Tinder bio”

– Allen Ginsburg

It would certainly appear so.

I haven’t actually seen it, but I hear this was pretty awful.

I’m sure their moms didn’t miss it. 😜

I mean… They’re not fucking wrong.

Sure, “For an upgrade”. Whatever you gotta tell yourself bro. We don’t care when you go down, just upon whom.

Maybe, but as I always say, today’s “crazy conspiracy theory” is tomorrow’s news.

Only if you’re inclined to believe the conspiracy theory first.

Doesn’t mean plenty of them don’t know or care that he’s trying to put microchips in people’s brains.

What an interesting error to point out in support of pemdas.

Clearly the formatting of a paragraph of text in a textbook full of clearly and unambiguously written formulas discussing the very order of operations itself compared to the formatting of an actual formula diagram is going to be less clear. But here you’ve chosen to point to a discussion of why the order is irrelevant in the case under question.

Your example is the conclusion of a review of mathematics.

First we shall review some mathematics.

…

The actual order of differentiation is immaterial:

The fact that the example formula is written sloppy is irrelevant, because at no point is this going to be an actual formula meant to be solved, it’s merely an illustration of why, in this case, the order of a particular operation is “immaterial”.

Even if ∂^2f/∂y∂x is clearly written to mean ∂^2f/(∂y∂x), it doesn’t matter because “∂2f/∂x∂y=∂2f/∂y∂x”. So long as you’re consistently applying pemdas, you’re going to get the same answer whether you derive x first or y.

However, when it’s time to discuss the actual formulas and equations being taught in the example text, clearly and unambiguously written formulas are illustrated as though copied from Ann illustration on a whiteboard instead of inserted into paragraphs that might have simply been transcribed from a lecture. Which, somewhat coincidentally, is exactly what your citation is.

That’s a weird argument.

It’s not an argument for going to prison, it’s a commentary on the deplorable state of American society.

Suicide is even cheaper, should we recommend that?

You think people haven’t considered and even exercised that option for that very reason?

incarceration is not an experience most people enjoy…

If the point of prison is to remove joy, then why not just have convicts play No Man’s Sky?

But seriously, should that even be the point? Isn’t the point of having a justice system a bit more nuanced than that? Shouldn’t our aim be to create a better society in general? Not simply through mere incarceration, but also education and mental health care?

Don’t we owe it to the members of society who have been failed by society to lift them up when possible to a place where they no longer need to subvert and disrupt society’s rules for the sake of their own survival? Don’t we owe it to the rest of society to provide a path to a productive life for so of its citizens, regardless of our previous unwillingness or inability to do so?

It’s definitely cheaper to live in jail than have to work at a job and pay rent. At least in the US it is.