I'm amused by those who imagine that the laws of physics can be defied merely by looking the other way. It makes me ponder how unbelievably moronic humanity is, how pathetic, and how deserving of what it is come.

Yeah, when thinking of the typical air fryer market, think "working mom with kids who wants to serve something nicer than a microwave dinner, but doesn't have the time for much prep or waiting". You can get those mailard reactions that microwaving doesn't really get you, nice crisping and browning of the surface that you normally get from an oven, without having to wait for an oven to preheat. I don't think anyone disputes that an oven will do a better job, but the air fryer does a better job than a microwave, which is what it's really competing against. They're also marketed as easy-clean, which again is a nod to their target audience.

How costs build up is really staggering. I'm getting into the business of importing 3d filament. In Iceland, it currently sells for like $35/kg minimum. The actual value of the plastic is like $1. The factory's total cost, all costs included, is like $1,50. If it's not name brand, e.g. they're not dumping money on marketing, they sell it for $3 for the cheapest stuff. Sea freight adds another dollar or two. Taxes here add 24%. But you're still at like $5/kg. The rest is all middlemen, warehousing, air freight for secondary legs from intermediary hubs, and all the markup and taxes on those things.

With me importing direct from the factory, sea freight only, I can get rid of most of those costs. Warehousing is the biggest unavoidable cost. If I want to maintain an average inventory of like 700kg, it adds something like $5/kg to the cost. Scanning in goods and dispatching user orders (not counting shipping) together adds like $2,50. And then add 24% tax (minus the taxes on the imported goods). There's still good margin, but it's amazing how quickly costs inflate.

Your "junk" is someone else's "must-have".
Your "must-have" is someone else's "junk".

I mean, from a horticultural perspective, there is some potential to gain more of other nutrients, in that if you have more energy, you can develop a larger root system, or generally more effectively, better feed mycorrhizal associations (fungal hyphae are much finer than root hairs, so can get into smaller cracks, and fungi can "acid mine" nutrients out of mineral grains - as an example, here's a microscopic image showing what they did to a garnet)

That said, yeah, in general if you can provide more energy, you expect the storage of "calories" to grow much faster than the acquisition of other minerals. Also, it's important to note that while more CO2 is generally good for most plants, more heat, or greater periods of drought (land dries out faster, monsoon belts spread) and flooding (atmosphere holds more moisture, monsoon belts spread) are not. In regards to heat as well, there's a lot of details. First off, though we commonly don't think about it, heat management in plants is critical. Their proteins are designed for function within an optimal temperature range, and to maintain it, they have to cool themselves down with transpiration, creating more water stress. Also it's worth noting that C3 plants (most plants) fundamentally don't tolerate heat as well as C4 or CAM plants (there's work to engineer C4 into some common agricultural crops... it's frankly amazing to me that they're getting some success, as it's not a trivial change).

BTW, the reason that plants grow better with more CO2 isn't what most people might think. The TL/DR is that the protein that sequesters CO2 so that (using ATP and NADPH from photosynthesis) - RuBisCo (the most abundant protein on Earth, something that has been evolving for billions of years) frankly sucks at its job. Something like 20-25% of the time (at normal CO2 levels), instead of binding with CO2, it binds with O2 instead ("photorespiration"), which means not only does it not sequester a carbon, but the plant has to *give up a carbon* to regenerate the RuBisCo. This is disastrous in terms of energy efficiency. And as a side effect, you also have to keep the stomata open more, which means more water loss. But as you increase the CO2 levels, the ratio between binding CO2 and binding O2 improves, and photorespiration waste drops. C4 plants "fix" this problem by instead of having RuBisCo directly bind CO2, they first bind CO2 into malate (with high selectivity), then the malate transports into bundle sheath cells, the CO2 is re-released, and THEN - in a high-CO2 environment - RuBisCo takes it up. This reduces photorespiration, but also introduces some more wasteful chemical conversions. (CAM plants to even further by storing malate inside vacuules - at the cost of even more energy - so that they can store it up during the night, and then use it during the day, which - although even more wasteful - lets them keep their stomata closed during the day to conserve water)

(BTW, there are some microbes that have developed a more efficient RuBisCo, but it's proving challenging to engineer it into higher plants)

They're ovens that are faster to preheat. Which shortens the cooking time of meals that are mostly pre-prepared, which is what most people eat (if you're preparing a meal from scratch, usually prep work takes up the preheating time)

The point is that people who willingly contributed to the enshittification of the internet have no ground to stand no to complain about the enshittification of the internet.

Hi lovelies! Welcome back to my little corner of the comment section! I am so incredibly excited to share this comment with you today. It is a family favorite, passed down through generations of posters, and it is honestly a total game-changer for weeknight reading. But before we get to the actual text of my opinion on this article, I just have to share a little story about my journey with digital content.

[ JUMP TO COMMENT ] (Link does not work)

It was a crisp autumn morning in 1998. The leaves were turning that beautiful shade of red, and the sound of dial-up modems was in the air. My grandmother (rest in peace, Nana!) used to sit me on her knee and say, "Sweetie, one day you’re going to read an article about Artificial Intelligence scraping content, and you’re going to need the perfect text-based response to go with it." She was so right.

I remember the way the sunlight hit the CRT monitor—it’s an unforgettable memory for me. Just like the way the aroma of roasting garlic fills a kitchen, the warmth of a flame war fills the soul. My hubby, who is a huge tech enthusiast (and my biggest taste-tester!), always says that the key to a good comment is the texture. You want it to be crunchy on the outside but soft and savory on the inside.

Why You Will LOVE This Comment

It’s 100% Organic: No LLMs were used in the making of this opinion!
Quick & Easy: Once you scroll past 4,000 words, it takes seconds to read!
Kid-Friendly: My kiddos beg for this comment every Tuesday night!
Freezer Friendly: You can save this HTML and reheat it for later debates.

I know what you're thinking. "User:Rei, do I really need another opinion on copyright law and the extinction of the ad-supported web?" Trust me, you do. This isn't just any opinion. This is a curated opinion. ... [Subscribe to my Newsletter to remove ads] ...

The Secret Ingredient

A lot of people think the secret to a good Slashdot post is the insight. But actually? It’s the SEO optimization. When I went to Tuscany last summer to study under a master poster, I learned that the old ways are the best. We hand-kneaded our sentences for hours. It was exhausting, but so rewarding. It really made me appreciate the artisanal nature of the internet before Google's AI started making "Frankenstein" summaries.

Speaking of Frankenstein, isn't it funny how Mary Shelley really understood the human condition? Frankenstein tells the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment that involved putting it together with different body parts. Shelley started writing the story when she was 18 and staying in Bath,[2] and the first edition was published anonymously in London on 1 January 1818, when she was 20. Her name first appeared in the second edition, which was published in Paris in 1821.

Shelley travelled through Europe in 1815, moving along the river Rhine in Germany, and stopping in Gernsheim, 17 kilometres (11 mi) away from Frankenstein Castle, where, about a century earlier, Johann Konrad Dippel, an alchemist, had engaged in experiments.[3][4][5] She then journeyed to the region of Geneva, Switzerland, where much of the story takes place. Galvanism and occult ideas were topics of conversation for her companions, particularly for her lover and future husband Percy Bysshe Shelley.

In 1816 —at the suggestion of Lord Byron— Mary, Percy, John Polidori and Byron himself, each agreed to try writing a ghost story.[6] After thinking for days, Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein after imagining a scientist who created life and was horrified by what he had made.[7] The novel was first published anonymously in 1818, and in 1831, a revised edition was published under Mary Shelley's name. This version included significant stylistic revisions, a new preface describing the story's conception, and a more explicitly moral tone.[8]

Frankenstein is one of the best-known works of English literature. Infused with elements of the Gothic novel and the Romantic movement, it has had a considerable influence on literature and on popular culture, spawning a complete genre of horror stories, films, and plays. Since the publication of the novel, the name Frankenstein has often been used to refer to the monster.[9][10][11]

It reminds me of this one time I was trying to bake a sourdough loaf while simultaneously debugging a Python script...

(Please disable AdBlock to view this anecdote about my parrot, Malcolm)

Equipment You Will Need

A keyboard (mechanical preferred, Cherry MX Blue for that crunch!)
A monitor
Internet connection
Patience (lots of it!)

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I substitute the sarcasm for genuine concern?

You can, but the result might be a little dry. I recommend sticking to the recipe!

How long does this comment keep?

It stays fresh in the archives for about 2 weeks before the link rot sets in.

Okay, I know you guys are hungry for the content! I see you in the comments section on Instagram asking, "Where is the comment? Why do I have to read about your grandmother?" I hear you! I just want to make sure you have all the context you need to succeed.

So, without further ado, here is the step-by-step guide to what I think about this article.

THE COMMENT

If the

100% this. Recipe sites jumped hard on the SEO bandwagon, and became so hated for it that "having to scroll down 15 pages to actually find the recipe" became the butt of a joke.

Cooperation would, indeed, be better. Unfortunately both sides want to ensure that only they win.

China is the enemy because Realpolitik asserts that there can be only one top country.

I don't know. Having people working there under assumed names sounds sort of like "Manhattan project" level security. I.e. it's a big secretive project with a lot of government backing". I'll grant it's a wildly overused metaphor, but that just means everyone will recognize it.

Sorry, but copying from what others are doing is very normal. Copyrights and patents were originally intended to be quite temporary in duration. And that's as it should be.

I'm all in favor of temporary copyrights and patents, say 5 years. Perhaps 10 if there are a LOT of up front development costs. Beyond that is an aberration, and one shouldn't expect others to abide by it. (And the US basically ignored UK patents and copyrights until quite recently.)

This is a lab machine, and it's not clear that it's making large chips. I think your 5-10 year prediction of last year is probably right. There will be engineering challenges in converting a lab machine into a production machine.

Actually, my (uninformed) prediction last year, and this year, is that it will take about a decade for China to equal the production of TSMC assuming TSMC keeps improving. But that they'll have "good enough for 90% of the market" within a very few years (and perhaps already do).

It's not that simple. Every holder of power acts to restrain challengers. If you allow monopolies, then innovation in that area slows drastically. When you have diverse centers of development, then development tends to be faster...but more expensive.

So if you want the most profitable companies, then you allow monopolies. If you want the fastest development, then you break up monopolies, of prevent them from ever arising...but this will make the companies less profitable (on the average).

Historically democracies have been more willing to break up monopolies. Right now, though, the US doesn't seem to be willing to do so. So now rapid development depends on competition between either countries or blocks of countries.