My grandfather told me that the nutrients and moisture within that one grape would keep the others alive for longer.
IMO the industrialization of agriculture and livestock was a huge leap forward in terms of yield and productivity, but a huge step backward in everything else (health, taste, variety, know-how, etc.)
[1] https://marksvegplot.blogspot.com/2016/09/tomates-de-colgar....
Absolutely. And we don't need no studies for it neither. Sheer sense of taste and common sense is enough.
And in case you didn't get it, I meant "sense of taste" as in the physical sense of taste of food, because that is what my parent was talking about, not taste as in aesthetics.
And did you know that the entire country of Denmark and the entire Indian state of Sikkim have gone organic, or plan to?
Also search HN (via hn.algolia.com) for my comments about Gabe Brown of Brown's Ranch, ND, USA. Check his videos, about regenerative agriculture (and why he switched to it, and the benefits he found over many years in money and health, vs. his conventionally farming neighbors across the road), nutrient density of food now vs. then, and more. Do some research on specifics, only then talk. Easy to generalize or handwave.
Also look similarly, on and off HN for Jean-Martin Fortier (Canada), Geoff Lawton (Australia), Richard Perkins (Sweden), Krishna McKenzie (India). I wrote about them too, on HN.
All of them have videos of their real work at their real sites. Many of them are world-famous in their field.
Those are just a tiny percentage of people applying more sensible techniques or permaculture and organic farming.
Did you know that the US Dept. of Agriculture has been recommending no-till for some years now, at least in some cases?
Edited for typos and grammar.
Might I suggest taking a walk? Perhaps come back when you're more inclined to engage with the commenter's not-completely-unreasonable point about cognitive biases?
Not worth my time to engage more, due to the silliness and insignificance of the whole (finger-pointing and moralising) issue.
I will end now, but, as a public service (like you grandiosely and egotistically thought you were doing, except that mine is sincere and better-motivated), to show others the cheapness and shittiness of such finger-pointing and moralising, I will leave you with this very relevant quote, by past U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, often termed "The Man in the Arena":
Video:
Watch "The Man in the Arena – Teddy Roosevelt (A Powerful Speech from History)" on YouTube
Text:
Happy to take part in undoing downvotes, though, while we're on the topic of HN metadiscussions. Or is defending one's own arguments/positions out of line on HN these days?
* Poorly formed. It has no clear central thesis and could have been reduced to and improved by a handful of relevant links.
* Lacking in charity. The comment in question did not have to be read as a personal attack, as others demonstrate.
* Egotistical. Your typical user does not check the CV of every commenter they engage with. This is not a reasonable expectation. Very few commenters are particularly notable people, and this user does not appear to be a noted agronomist whose opinion could be reasonably regarded as authoritative.
All of these combine in my eyes to create a comment worth discussing as poor in the hopes of improving the contributor's behavior. They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.
I agree with you that the comment that received this response is also far from ideal. I think it is reflexively glib, but perhaps without rising to the level of meriting a call-out. I recognize that this is a judgement call on which reasonable people might disagree.
Poor command or at least poor usage of language, even though guessing English is your native tongue:
Minion, one does not say:
>a comment worth discussing as poor
Instead, one says something like:
A poor comment.
Or even:
I did not like that comment.
KISS!
>They clearly have good information to share. We would all be better off if that was what took place.
Ahhh. The vain and unwarranted use of the royal "we". Sadly, "we" can see that "thee" have (or is it "thou hast", I don't care, ha ha) aspirations of greatness beyond thy abilities, as said in a sibling or nephew/whatever comment, varlet :)
Also, how doth thou know that they have good information to share, if thou implieth (above) that such did not take place?
Har de har har.
<Guffaws some more. Exeunt right.>
2. See what I said to user maccard in this subthread, here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26683149
Much of that reply applies to you too, both about thinking too much (mathematically or analytically) (or prissily :) about really simple staightforward issues, as well as the reverse, i.e. not thinking (clearly) enough about stuff that is really easy to understand (like my comment that you responded to). All you have to do is not let you own biases (as you presumptuously, wrongly and hastily accused me of) get in your way.
Wow.
Might I suggest you stop using weasel words, or stop waffling.
You could have said "reasonable point", unless you're waffling to leave yourself with an escape hatch (because you don't have the courage of your convictions), which your later reply to yellowapple also suggests:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26607927
That reply sounds heavily like weasel words to me.
"I don't like to ...".
Just "hand out" [1] the freaking downvote or comment and be done with it, FFS. Qualifying with "I don't like to" is weak. But then again, it's clear that you are ... weak.
[1] Jeez, "hand out", ha ha. Seems like you are trying to sound like a king, or more likely, queen, from on high, to boost your ego, what else.
But no thanks, Your Majesty. I'll skip kissing the tip of your robe, or whatever that fucking retarded feudal custom is. /s
Yeah, right :)
At least in California, the difference is often night and day.
Having an orchard at home, at neighbors'/friends' homes, etc. is one of the few things I miss about growing up in the Central Valley.
A lot of supermarket tomatoes are flavourless red balls of water.
Ha ha, you put that well. He or she sure does. It shows.
The person didn't get the point from my reply, though I made it fairly clear. Hope they get it, at least from the multiple replies to them, about taste of tomatoes and other produce, etc. The point being, not to make blanket unqualified statements, and not to reply without properly understanding what the person they are replying to, is talking about. That is an all too common failing by Hasty Harry-type people, on many online sites, not just HN. And often, the same people who make that mistake, criticize others for it.
>Sheer sense of taste and common sense is enough.
Those are good enough ways of judging situations in some cases, particularly day-to-day life issues, i.e. applying heuristics, common sense, empirical reasoning, etc. Works for me and many others, for many, even most, non-hard-science cases. E.g.: See what others said in this thread about tomatoes. Do you do a mathematical proof for every such judgement call (like which tomato to buy, organic or industrial), that you make in life? if so, you must have a huge backlog, ha ha, or not have time to have a life at all.
He just cut the whole vine with the grapes still on the vine.
The anatolian process seems a bit more complicated, but I guess you cut less vine.