Comment by jashmenn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jashmenn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Another Ag founder here and this is totally true. There's a lot of groundwork to lay before we can start applying state of the art algorithms to ag.

For example, a few months ago my co-founders and I built a computer vision system that could count fruit (predicting yield is important because produce spoils quickly). The growers we've shared it with love it but most don't have the infrastructure to use the data in their operations. It's hard to respond quickly when everyone is emailing spreadsheets.

Adoption of tech in ag has been slow, in part, because farmers are already very good at their jobs. Many of them have been working the same crop on the same land for decades so there has been some skepticism about what new information can be learned from "just another sensor."

But change is in the air. The water is running out, there's a huge labor shortage, and every farm employee now has a smartphone.

If we can spend the next year or two getting farm operational data online then there is a huge amount of value that can be unlocked with even relatively simple algorithms (not to mention deep learning etc.)

In fact, we don't really have any other choice. Software can bring in the next green revolution and that makes this a really exciting time.

Absolutely agree. Everything you just said I've heard or experienced in just a few months.

> There's a lot of groundwork to lay before we can start applying state of the art algorithms to ag.

We have experts in algorithms, embedded systems engineering, computer vision, software engineering, sensor technology, and robotics at our company (along with a few other specializations). But before we can utilize that talent to its fullest, we have to build the foundation. So that's what we, and a whole bunch of other really talented companies, are doing: building the foundation. Hopefully in a few growing seasons we can start to really apply what we've learned.

Are you open-sourcing your systems so that others may benefit? Or keeping them locked down to extract maximum profit?

I downvoted you because this strikes me as gratuitously negative, mean-spirited, and/or uncalled-for. Asking for pointers to any open-source work they've done would have been more appropriate.

What exactly is negative in my comment? Is extracting max profit bad? Or open-sourcing work?

The way you worded it sounds very negative, as if the only reason for keeping thing locked down is to extract maximum profit.

If you had said something like "fund the work" it would have sounded more acceptable. There is a large space between "extracting maximum profit" and "doing work for free".

What other reason is there for keeping something locked down?

Off the top of my head, scientific publishing. Keep it locked down until you have published then open source it.

I personally wouldn't want my work code online, as its always rushed and there is a fair bit of technical debt I would like to to refactor, rather than having potential employers thinking that I always write shit code. Feature requests are valued more than code quality.

I suppose wanting to hide perceived 'shoddy' workmanship is a reason.

I say, let it all hang out. Code can be continually improved.

I happen to think that max profit is a worthy goal. And big ups to any one that takes that route. It's that sort of thinking that drives efficiencies that make all our lives better. So when I read that comment I don't view it as negative. That said I see how it could be taken as negative.

You describe those options as though they are at opposite ends of the same spectrum. I'd say they're somewhat orthogonal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com