Plaidboy

Strange that the scout whose shoes we can see appears to have laces...

Cover cropping does not constitute monoculture when done ideally. In my personal experience with cover crops I have used multiple types of cover crop concurrently in one space.

Here is a great source on cover cropping: https://growingformarket.com/articles/cover-cropping-notill-systems

Excerpt from my source: "Rarely in nature do we see a field covered in just a couple of plant species; the natural soil care principle of maximizing diversity inspires us to do better. At Frith, we aim for at least three species in each mix, but some mixes may contain six or more."

And I don't think we'll be able to keep feeding the world with our current style of agriculture, which is generally depleting soil health and setting us up for future failure. We need more people to be active or semi active in agriculture on smaller scale farms and to eat more local food.

Crop rotation is a great thing but still falls within monoculture. Planting a field with only one type of thing is the definition of monoculture.

I seriously believe that cover cropping, intercropping, and examples like MonkderViete posted are the way forward - they result in higher crop yield per square foot and are more resilient in the face of climate change and pest pressure.

You should learn about the benefits of no till market gardens - they are real and they work.

From my perspective this "pinnacle of human ingenuity" is actually a farse, because it relies on a monoculture and is therefore unsustainable in the long term.

Don't get me wrong, the engineering is cool and I understand how important the mass production of food has been up to this point in human history, but there is another side of the story. The advent of machinery like this is part of why modern farmers use so many pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers - a monoculture depletes the soil of its nutrients and decreases natural pest control, necessitating the use of chemicals. The use of those chemicals has in turn driven huge ecosystem changes that we are only just beginning to understand the impact of (such as mass pollinator die-offs, changes to soil microbiology, pollution of fresh water sources, pollution of cropland soil, and more) as well as impacting humans in ways we don't understand since some of those chemicals make their way into our bodies.

If the buffer says 7.5 and it makes up 6 when mixed, either far too little of the buffer was used/there was already something else buffering the solution or the buffer was prepared incorrectly.

By selecting the correct buffer and the correct ratio of salt to acid (such as acetic acid and sodium acetate) an exact pH within a certain range can be reached.

I think it isn't that these other things you mentioned aren't war crimes, but rather that this particular instance involves a lot of evidence that could prove that this was a war crime unequivocally.

1. You heard other people say that, not me. Go respond to other people who are saying that instead of responding to someone who is NOT saying that (me).

2. What is your argument here? Honestly I'm confused about what your stance is. How far do you extend this moral equivalency? A strong case can be made that Russia's oil industry is a vital part of its war machine, but I don't think you could say the same about a Ukrainian coffee shop. Is it just as bad to kill a child by bombing a school as it is to kill an adult by bombing a weapons manufacturing facility?

From my perspective Ukrainian strikes are carried out in self defense against military related targets, while Russian strikes are often purposefully hitting targets not related to the military.

You can learn more about Russian strikes on Ukrainian civilians here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

I think your implication that a strike on Russian oil infrastructure that kills a civilian working there is equivalent to a strike on a Ukrainian apartment building is wack.

IIRC the reason most caps used to be unrecyclable (many still are) is that they had a liner in them made of a different material. Because such caps were composite materials (using different types of plastic for the liner and the cap), they would make an impure product if recycled. The same problem applies if the cap and bottle are different types of plastic, which used to be more common.

Nor do they justify the armored personnel carrier... Talk about over the top. Obviously intentionally over the top to intimidate.

Wish we got a more complete understanding of the truckers' side in this article - why is it so hard to turn off your engine instead of idling?

The guy quoted in the article says that some trucks need to operate their lift gates 15 or 20 times in a day. First of all, turn on your engine to operate the gate and then turn it off when you're done... Secondly, if it is impacting business too much to take that extra time to turn the engine on and off, invest in an auxiliary power source to operate the lift gate.

Maybe I'm missing something?

How useful of a platform is it if only selected information is allowed to be shared? From my perspective, it is only useful for Reddit admins want it to be useful for.

In your particular case, it was NOT useful for communicating very important information to your local community, unless I am misunderstanding your post here.

So by you and others continuing to use Reddit instead of committing to another platform, the suppression of information is facilitated/implicitly supported.