An AGO trap works just as well and you don't need to buy MosquitoDunks. While Bacillus thuringiensis has so far been considered safe, there is always the law of unintended consequences to worry about.
While technically true. Companies are in the business of maximizing profits and they will cut corners if they can get away with it. A company interested in selling on the quality end of the spectrum will get the UL certification. A company interested in selling at the cheep end of the spectrum won't and likely cut corners to make the item as cheep as possible.
Its certainly an option. Chickens can live 7-12 years so that's a lot of feed for a chicken to not produce eggs. More economical to make soup. Their livestock, not pets.
In the UK, a big sack of feed for chickens costs around £12, and that will feed 15 chickens for a week (roughly). So I could be wasting 80p/week per unproductive chicken.
Lots of people think animals are dumb beasts. My neighbor threw a party with a bunch of people in his PhD program. Our dogs hang out and we left the gate open between our properties so the dogs could go back and forth.
One of the PhD students was amazed that if you threw a ball over the fence the dog knew how to go around the fence and through the gate to get the ball.
A friend of mine had a dog (Rover) that was half dingo. Dang, was he smart. But if he was on a rope attached to a tree, and wound around the tree, he could not figure out that he needed to run the other direction to unwind the rope.
When he went on vacation, he asked if I could walk Rover once a day, I said sure. Rover reveled in being the top dog in the neighborhood. One of his favorite methods to assert dominance was hilarious. We'd pass one yard that had a fence made from vertical planks butted against each other. The yard contained one of the beta dogs.
Rover found a knothole at just the right height, put his butt against it, and emptied through the hole into the beta dog's territory.
The beta dog went berserk. Rover literally pranced as we continued his walkies.
When our dog’s toy rolled under the couch he went and retrieved a flyswatter we keep in the cleaning closet and brought it to me. He had seen me use this only one other time when his toy rolled under there.
They can certainly learn things like using gates, however they don't seem to have a concept of object permanence. If they go to the other side of the fence and do not find the ball, they will tend to begin a spiraling search for it, rather than concentrate on where the ball logically should be if you tracked the trajectory of it and formed a concept of where it went even after it left your sight.
Dogs obviously have a concept of object permanence, since they know to go around the fence to look for a ball in the first place. They wouldn't look for it once it's left their sight around a fence otherwise. That they're confused if they cannot immediately find the ball only shows that they struggle to calculate arcs, which many humans also do.
And for anyone with a particularly intelligent but ball obsessed breed of dog you can ask them to get the ball so you can play and they’ll go from the front of the house around the back to pick it up off the top shelf in the shed where you placed it (but forgot yourself, but they remembered) and bring it to you.
I absolutely assure you: My border collie knows at all times where the ball is. There’s zero question of object permanance.
I swear people who talk about object permanence have never tested it.
The Wikipedia article about babies even talks about it not starting until month 8 [1]! At least, under "Contradicting evidence" they talk about other studies that showed as early as 3 months ...
I think people just want to feel special and just can't accept that other animals have the same abilities that we do.
Likely because their brain is optimized to find live prey, which tends to move around and take evasive actions. Intuitively understanding parabolic motion physics is probably not that useful in the wild.
I was "fortunate" to live through the dot com crash early in my career.
When the times were good, the messaging was we were all one big family. When the crash came, there were weekly layoffs. Co-workers that thought they were friends turned on each other to keep their jobs.
I learned to keep a fat emergency fund. I learned to work as a mercenary. I get in, I get out, I get paid. Then I live my life, which is not work. I keep no personal effects, and can be out the door in a second. Coworkers are acquaintances, not friends.
That's likely quoted from Red Green, a 90s TV show where the titular character always says that phrase while making absurd contraptions out of duct tape. (For example, converting a car to use gull wing doors, using only duct tape.)
Although I like the quote I do not think it is good advice for the younger generations. No early 20s to early 30s girl is going to settle for a guy just because he is "handy". It takes much more than that. It is also not fun being with someone who is not into you physically.
I actually disagree. If you are only a moderately attractive girl, and want children especially in this economy, a handy guy is the only way that's going to happen regardless of his perceived handsomeness. As long as he's not a stereotypical Reddit neckbeard, he'll probably be fine.
> It is also not fun being with someone who is not into you physically.
I don't actually believe this. Our prime of physical attraction only lasts 20 years give or take; but is then followed by another ~40 years of very limited attraction no matter who you are. Even for the healthiest and most attractive, it is completely inevitable that there will be a time without physical attraction.
>If you are only a moderately attractive girl, and want children especially in this economy, a handy guy is the only way that's going to happen regardless of his perceived handsomeness.
My sweet summer child, young women often have kids with guys who are handsome losers. I don't just mean accidents either. They do it on purpose because the guy looks good or they just really want a kid quick.
Bingo. Dating apps were my biggest nightmare. I don't think I've ever landed a good date out of them over the years. Meeting someone at a friend's BBQ? Easy as.
I still get PTSD seeing my friends swipe Tinder. So cruel.
HTTP was not designed for apps, it was designed for serving HTML. We had a decent solution in Java applets and the tech giants could play nice so we couldn't have nice things.
The work around has been a huge kludge of crap frameworks of the day trying to reinvent the OS and associated API in the browser. It sucks all the way down.
Are less able to be customized, reverse-engineered, and controlled by the user
Are subject to arbitrary, vague, constantly shifting, opaque app store approval rules
Require constant updates just to continue existing, since the platforms they target don't care for backwards compatibility, and are constantly releasing updates
Are hostile to open source projects that have limited resources, as those represent a drain on the system, since they generate no revenue
