Fortunately, woodland creatures don’t hire lawyers

  • 1.9K Posts
  • 641 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • While you aren’t wrong about them being good to use in Ag, the scenario where you can do both is more limited.

    You can’t drive a combine harvester under panels, to harvest the crop you just protected for instance, unless you place and design your panels carefully. It’s ok for pasture in that sheep and the like can get in and chow down and it provides shade though.

    For a parking lot, it’s easier, as shown, but also fuck cars, they’re their own environmental disaster

    They are using them on closed tailings facilities (mining) to add additional land use or gain benefit where there wasn’t really a good land use to begin with.

    I think urban settings are where panels will ultimately shine, as you can concentrate them without taking up other land uses - it’s just an add on and doesn’t detract from existing or future uses like using them in an ag field would.





  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netOPtoMicroblog Memes@lemmy.worldProtein
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve never been big. Even now, at my largest, I’m 6’ and 200 lbs. Spent a lot of time in the 165-175lb range.

    I spent most of my days stomping though fens and forests, and digging holes when I got there. While it sounds scenic (and parts of it certainly were), I’ve huffed it through some of the shittiest terrain imaginable while carrying gear.

    My least favorites were dense shrubby fens and old burns. A buddy and I spent 20 mins moving 100 m once lol.

    I’d work 300 hr months from mid May until end of November and then go on rotation on the mines to recover with 240 hr months.

    10 years of that was enough. I’ve been luxuriating behind a desk for the last 5 years. It’s a nice way to retire from the field, and my hips and back are much happier










  • unrelated: that double negative is throwing me for a fucking loop, but the coffee hasn’t kicked in.

    I think “It’s unlikely that in a 4 person polycule that at least one of them isn’t nonbinary” is the better way to phrase it. I’m not trying to be pedantic here. I’m just wrestling (aloud) with the structure of the sentence.

    Related: Why would a polycule almost always have a non-binary member? I’m not up to date on this stuff, but I could see a bi polycule working, or something like that, with them all aligning with their typical (i use this word lightly, for lack of a better one) gender.