
Robots fight weeds in challenge to agrochemical giants - rmason
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-farming-tech-chemicals-insight/robots-fight-weeds-in-challenge-to-agrochemical-giants-idUSKCN1IN0IK
======
reaperducer
While it's nice that the robo-gardener is going to reduce pesticide use by
being more precise in its spraying, it might be even better if the thing could
be given a gripper to just yank out the offending sprout before it gets out of
control.

Chuck it on the dirt and let it whither in the sun (since the bot is solar
powered). The nutrients will return to the soil on the next rain.

It would be cool to see a herd of maybe 50 of these weed-picking robots
ambling through a field.

~~~
mobilefriendly
A weed on the dirt would likely grow in the new spot, and gripping is tricky.
But to your point, what about just a spike or hammer or blade to just mash the
weed? More simple than a grip.

~~~
adrianmonk
Chuck the weed in a barrel and take it away somewhere to be killed. Apparently
a compost pile will kill weeds (and their seeds) if at a hot enough
temperature long enough.

~~~
burfog
You could also heat it in place. Propane is not really a pesticide, but it
works nicely. An electric arc should also work nicely, even burning out the
root.

------
awakeasleep
Is maddening use of the english language like "reduce pesticide use by 20
times" a part of some big-name style guide now?

I can't remember the last time I've seen a major publication phrase a
reduction in a way that makes sense. Things like "Reduce by 95%" or "require
1/20th of the pesticide" seem to be stricken by copy editors in favor of
nonsensical multiplication.

~~~
seandougall
I find it just as maddening as you do. But I have to concede to the
descriptivists that it’s clear and unambiguous in context, as well as being in
common use.

~~~
tryptophan
I don't find it clear at all. 20 times what? All I get out of that is that
whatever reduction is happening is probably big because I'm not context blind,
but then again it could be a 20 x .000001% reduction. When saying X is 20
times larger that is unambiguous, it just means 20 _X. When something is being
reduced 20 times what does that mean? X - something_ 20?? X-20? X/20?

~~~
seandougall
I read it as a shorthand for "reduce by a factor of 20" \-- crucially, I
believe `x` is meant to represent `⨉` (the multiplication symbol), as opposed
to `𝓍` (a scalar variable).

The reason it drives me crazy is that I can't help but read it as being
equivalent to multiplying by -19 (particularly when it's phrased like "such
and such is now 20x less foobarish"). But even I have to concede that it
clearly doesn't mean that.

------
rcdmd
Neat tech. And, perhaps validated by John Deere's acquisition of Blue River
last September for $284million-- $193 million being goodwill!

