Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | vram11's commentslogin

Do you have a link for that? Checked their site just now (on mobile though), did not see a relevant link.


What sort of pipeline? Biological?


Yeah, basically using it to fertilize a crop to grow a "green manure" crop for a couple of rounds and then cycling back to food crops.


Jackfruit has a great, rich taste; I like it, although I don't go much for sweet foods generally (I make an exception now and then, for some). The sticky stuff between the edible parts is a bit of a turnoff, though. Not easy to get it off your hands, once on. Also, the fruit has a strong smell, but not a bad one, IMO.

You cannot eat a lot of it, since it is rather dense, though soft.

It's also one of those wonder plants, like neem, banana and coconut, with many uses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackfruit



The mango has at least an equal claim to be the King of Fruits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Fruits


Based on looking up durian in Wikipedia, and having seen large jackfruits in India, I can say that jackfruit can grow much larger.


I was wondering the same, as someone who has eaten jackfruit but never durian.


Thanks.


Unfortunately not. It's not insurance all the way down. Turtles, on the other hand ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down


Loss from stealing was called 'shrinkage' by retail industry people, in Sam Walton's autobiography 'Made in America'. As you say, they expected to have some. I wonder why it can't be prevented 100%.


Prevention to 100% would be costly. They have diminishing marginal returns.

Why would someone pay $50,000/year for a hypothetical system which would theoretically catch everyone and fill out the police report automatically when the store experiences a tiny $300 annual shrinkage loss?


Because stopping retail theft 100% requires an inconvenience to normal customers that is off-putting and will cause them to go somewhere else.


I certainly wouldn't shop somewhere that required my bags and pockets to be searched every time I left the store.


Lying for Money makes the case that the optimal amount of fraud in any real world system is non-zero. Fraud prevention has direct and indirect costs. At some point the costs of fraud prevention will exceed the cost of fraud itself.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: