As I'm sure you're aware, glyphosate is usually only appropriate as a weed killer on your property if you're looking to kill all vegetation in/around where you spray it. For example if you wanted to "nuke" your lawn by killing all the grass and starting over with new grass. It's a non-selective herbicide in this context, it kills everything.
If you've got some dandelions or thistle, and it's not out of control, the nice safe way is to pull them up by hand or, if they're between pavement cracks, pour boiling water on them.
Broadleaf weeds growing in your lawn that aren't easily hand-pulled can be killed with a selective herbicide like 2,4-d. Tough underground vine-style weeds like creeping charlie or wild violet will need a selective called triclopyr. Crabgrass is best killed by a selective called quinclorac. Yellow nutsedge requires a selective called sulfrentrazone or another called halosulfuron.
Selectively kill the weed infestations as best you can, get rid of the bad ones before they go to seed, and focus on the health of your grass -- in most parts of your lawn, healthy grass will out-compete weeds.
Glyphosate is extremely effective as a targeted weed killer. It only impact what you spray it with. It does not teleport from one plant to another. It's also not strong enough to kill heathy mature plants with a small amount of overspray.
When I really want to nuke it so that nothing grows, like in a decorative stone area, I use water softener salt. I dissolve it in a bucket of water until no more will dissolve then pour it wherever I want the vegetation to stop growing.
Anything there will die, and nothing will grow again for a long time. Although, it does spring back to life eventually. Usually once a year is sufficient.
Dandelions are really, really hard to eradicate by pulling. The roots grow very deep, and if you don't get them completely, the plant can re-grow from what's left.
Even if you do successfully get it out, it really is going to be more work than painting a weed killer on them.
My dad use to have my brother and I work for hours during the summer pulling dandelions in the lawn (to be fair he was out there with us doing it himself also). We each had a knife with about a 4" long blade, we would cut the root as deep as we could and pull the top out. Never really seemed to reduce the number we had.
It depends on the target and the surrounding soil. It’s often easier to pull especially for the random weed that sprouts up around your landscaping. However if you are trying to manage an infestation of invasive species, where the surrounding soil will have a seed bank heavily contaminated with seeds from the years of invasive reproduction, it’s usually a bad idea to merely pull. You can expose soil to sunlight and cause an explosion of dormant seeds. And some nasty invasives are nearly impossible to remove by hand because of their root structure — some species even leave little rhizomes broken off in the soil along the root structure when you pull off the foliage causing a hydra effect.
tl;dr targeted herbicide is a much less evolutionarily selected-for offense, as opposed to hand cultivation which mimics attacks plants have evolved to survive for eons
> As I'm sure you're aware, glyphosate is usually only appropriate as a weed killer on your property if you're looking to kill all vegetation in/around where you spray it.
> It's a non-selective herbicide in this context, it kills everything.
It is a non-selective herbicide, but it's not a systemic herbicide. It functions by interfering with photosynthesis, but since it is minimally absorbed via root systems, it must be applied directly to the foilage. You can spray it on the ground around a plant and that plant will happily ignore it. This is why the instructions are explicit about applying directly to the foilage during sunny days when the wind is light.
As a homeowner, I loved glyphosate. It was cheap, simple, effective, and could be applied in a selective manner. It's not the best choice for getting rid of broadleaf weeds in a lawn, but I used it all the time in my gardens to kill weeds and keep the bermudagrasses out.
Roundup makes a product that looks like roll on deodorant. You literally roll it onto the leaves of the things you want to kill, and everything else remains unharmed.
I'm also a fan of glyphosphate. Nothing else works nearly as well. People who are critical of "chemicals" to control weeds have never had to deal with a weedy pavement before.
Hey, I really like the idea! There are various palm trees around here, I keep fighting the unwelcome guests that show up. Unless caught really early they are basically impossible to pull and almost all of them show up in places I don't want to dig them out. A contact-only killer sounds like just the right thing.
Yes! I also used glyphosate to kill things growing in and around my sidewalk, driveway, steps, and curb. I've also used a propane torch for the same purposes, but it requires more effort and cannot be applied quite so selectively. It works, though, and is a good choice for anyone who would rather use a petroleum product than an herbicide.
I looked up the product you mentioned and you're right -- it does look like deodorant! It's a gel that contains glyphosate and isopropylamine salt. Neat!
Normal propane weed burners work pretty well against weeds in areas where it's reasonable to use something like that. But they aren't good if there's anything nearby you want to protect.
I know a guy who has this theory, in essence at least. Businesses use software and other high-tech to make efficiency gains (fewer people getting more done). The opportunities for developing and selling software were historically in digitizing industries that were totally analog. Those opportunities are all but dried up and we're now several generations into giving all those industries new, improved, but ultimately incremental efficiency gains with improved technology. What makes AI and robotics interesting, from this perspective, is the renewed potential for large-scale workforce reduction.
Almost nobody who works in software development is a licensed professional engineer. Many are even self-taught, and that includes both ICs and managers. I'm not saying this is direct causation but I do think it odd that we are so utterly dependent on software for so many critical things and yet we basically YOLO its development compared to what we expect of the people who design our bridges, our chemicals, our airplanes, etc.
Licensing and the perceived rigor it signifies is irrelevant to whether something can be considered "professional engineering." Engineering exists at the intersection of applied science, business and economics. So most software projects can be YOLO'd simply because the economics permit it, but there are others where the high costs necessitate more rigor.
For instance, software in safety-critical systems is highly rigorously developed. However that level of investment does not make sense for run-of-the-mill internal LOB CRUD apps which constitute the vast majority of the dark matter of the software universe.
Software engineering is also nothing special when it comes to various failure modes, because you'll find similar examples in other engineering disciplines.
After reading the first couple paragraphs I realized it was structured like marketing content. Then I saw the first emdash and nope'd out. Control-W, get that slop out of my life.
The pitch clock is undoubtedly the most impactful of the changes made recently to speed up the game. However, other changes were implemented alongside it that have contributed in meaningful ways:
- Limit on the number of times per plate appearance a pitcher can "disengage" by stepping off/calling time or making a pickoff move.
- Limit on the number of times per plate appearance a batter can "disengage" by stepping out/calling time.
- Minimum of 3 batters must be faced by an incoming relief pitcher (or must finish the half-inning)
- Limit on the number of mound visits per game
- Larger bases
- Elimination (mostly) of the defensive "shift"
- Team at bat starts with an automatic "ghost" runner on 2nd base in extra innings
While I also dislike the ghost runner, I can't deny that it's been a net positive for the game. By mostly eliminating marathon extra-inning slogs, not only does it speed up the game, but it also makes it much harder for teams to run out of pitchers they can safely use, which reduces injuries and ensures that we are not subjected to watching two backup catchers throw 48mph Eephus pitches in the 17th inning, long after they stopped selling beer.
Long extra inning games are pretty rare. I too hate the “Manfred Man” but the players and coaches overwhelmingly approve of it. I think that using the ghost runner at the start of the 12th inning would be a good compromise.
I'm in favor of compromise, but why the 12th inning? Haven't looked at the data but from memory it does kind of feel like games that get to the 12th inning tend to last into, say, the 15th or later.
I think 12th based on (and I cannot emphasize this enough) vibes instead of data would be fine.
10th definitely feels too soon (it's basically the 9th), and the 11th still kinda feels too soon too.
If anything, I'd argue it should be fine to ask your closer/reliever to pitch an extra inning (the 10th) "as-is". The 11th makes you burn an extra reliever, and that should be okay.
The 12th is where I'd start to say "okay, wind it down, we're all losing now".
Reminding me of the Mariners playoffs game a couple seasons ago that lasted 18 innings. That was bizarre to watch. I forget who they were facing. Astros I think?
I see it as a negative. Too many games are lost because a reliever gives up a couple fly ball outs and the Manfred Man comes round to score. I’d rather see ties than these fake wins.
Ties are allowed, but only in very special circumstances. If for some reason they can’t keep playing, the game is supposed to be suspended and then restarted at a later date. But if it’s the last time the two teams play each other in the season and the playoff tiebreaker rules aren’t an issue, they just end the game in a tie. It doesn’t show up in the standings, so you probably didn’t even realize it happens! The player stats count, however.
The last tie in baseball was in 2016 - Cubs vs Pirates. The game ended in the 6th inning due to rain.
If you look at the article, you can see that games have been getting progressively slower since records started being kept back in the 1920s. The recent rule changes have managed to cut the duration back to what they were in the early 80s.
By your logic, the games my mom grew up watching weren't slow enough, and the games my grandma watched were true blasphemy at around 2 hours flat.
Meanwhile, from my wife's perspective, I spend all afternoon watching even these sped-up games.
Does watching or listening to baseball feel too fast-paced? I haven't played much attention to baseball in many years, but I agree with you, baseball is supposed to be slow.
The ghost runner rule is by far the most ridiculous. A pitcher can give up no hits, and get an ER and the L in extra innings. Make it make sense. Baseball is also telling on itself here because that rule does not apply in the playoffs.
Baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings. The two hour limit is the most important rule change that makes bananaball superior (but their other changes are also universally positive).
Pandering to the few diehards who can pay attention to more than 100 games a year on every day of the week including weekdays for 4+ hours at a time is not a sustainable way to build or maintain interest in your sport in newer generations.
The people who watch baseball and care about baseball don't like the Manfred runner. The people who complain that "baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings" aren't people who watch baseball and care about baseball. I don't care about the options baseball haters have about baseball rules.
I hate the removal of the shift. I thought it was such an interesting innovation to the game, and the fact that baseball allowed for such things part of its magic.
I'm with you. I think it should only apply to games that have fairly clearly gotten "stuck" and things are just dragging - like others have suggested, 12th inning seems like a reasonable start.
I've always felt a lot of intensity going into the 9th inning in any sort of lose came, even moreso if it's tied. And before the manfred man, that carried through if we went to the 10th or 11th.
Now it feels like as soon as we get to extra innings it's a shitshow. It's one thing if a pitcher has made a series of mistakes (or the fielders behind him) and you end up with someone on second and you throw a passed ball and someone scores. It's another when the first pitch of the half inning is a passed ball and this bizarro zombie runner scores on you.
I want to watch teams have to put together a string of "good baseball" moments to win, or at the very least watch a trainwreck in action if one team loses the game more than the other team won it. Or the majesty of a well-hit long ball, ideally with an excellent bat flip. The only thing that should be able to walk off the game in the very first at-bat of the bottom half of the inning is a home run.
The unlimited pickoffs were ridiculous. It technically meant the game could simply not progress until either the pitcher or the runner made a mistake. Glad it's no longer the case.
To be pedantic I don’t think the 3-batter rule mentions relief pitchers. If a team wanted to use an opening pitcher to face only the first batter and then replace him, that would also be against the rules.
I don't support what the Trump administration is doing. But saying it's "categorically, scientifically, absurd" to lay people off is some next-level stuff. I can guarantee to anyone reading this, that this person has never owned a business with any kind of significant overhead.
> For instance, a study of one Fortune 500 tech firm done by Teresa Amabile at Harvard Business School discovered that after the firm cut its staff by 15%, the number of new inventions it produced fell 24%. In addition, layoffs can rupture ties between salespeople and customers. Researchers Paul Williams, M. Sajid Khan, and Earl Naumann have found that customers are more likely to defect after a company conducts layoffs. Then there’s the effect on a company’s reputation: E. Geoffrey Love and Matthew S. Kraatz of University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign found that companies that did layoffs saw a decline in their ranking on Fortune’s list of most admired companies.
> A 2002 study by Magnus Sverke and Johnny Hellgren of Stockholm University and Katharina Näswall of University of Canterbury found that after a layoff, survivors experienced a 41% decline in job satisfaction, a 36% decline in organizational commitment, and a 20% decline in job performance.
> In a 2012 review of 20 studies of companies that had gone through layoffs, Deepak Datta at the University of Texas at Arlington found that layoffs had a neutral to negative effect on stock prices in the days following their announcement. Datta also discovered that after layoffs a majority of companies suffered declines in profitability, and a related study showed that the drop in profits persisted for three years. And a team of researchers from Auburn University, Baylor University, and the University of Tennessee found that companies that have layoffs are twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as companies that don’t have them.
It also just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Also, there's no reason to cast aspersions. Feel free to actually engage anytime you want.
I am reminded of an episode of Seinfeld where Jerry gives his dad an expensive, multifunction PDA called "The Wizard" but his Dad doesn't immediately see the use. Jerry explains it can do all kinds of things, for example, it has a calculator he can use to calculate tips at restaurants, leading Dad to conclude it's a $200 tip calculator. Jerry keeps protesting "it does other things!" and the old folks act like they can't even hear him.
If you've got some dandelions or thistle, and it's not out of control, the nice safe way is to pull them up by hand or, if they're between pavement cracks, pour boiling water on them.
Broadleaf weeds growing in your lawn that aren't easily hand-pulled can be killed with a selective herbicide like 2,4-d. Tough underground vine-style weeds like creeping charlie or wild violet will need a selective called triclopyr. Crabgrass is best killed by a selective called quinclorac. Yellow nutsedge requires a selective called sulfrentrazone or another called halosulfuron.
Selectively kill the weed infestations as best you can, get rid of the bad ones before they go to seed, and focus on the health of your grass -- in most parts of your lawn, healthy grass will out-compete weeds.
reply