The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Basically they will show case all the new technology that they are working on. Maybe release some of them right after (or during) the show.
I, for one, is excited to see demos and see code samples about the tech I mentioned.
But if you are comfortably happy with your tools, averse to un-needed change, and would need something really powerful that punch through your code and make it all magically way better, faster, easier and more powerful to even hope to stir an inch of interest... mmm... nah, don't think it's gonna happen, so you can safely pass!
I, for one, is excited to see demos and see code samples about the tech I mentioned.
I would be interested in something like that, if that is how it goes down. What I don't want to see however is a 48-hour "sales pitch".
If there was a more structured plan to it I might be able to justify dedicated work time to it, but with the information I found I guess I could just sign-up and watch it with one eye while I am working (no commitment option).
let the newbies and 'reporters' watch it and after see the comments / reviews they post.
if anything is worthwhile (based on the comments / reviews) watch a replay later.
- will anything in it be so life changing you cant wait a day/week/month to find out?
- even if there are amazing items, what about the hours of dross before and after that snippet?
the reason it's live is to generate [mostly sales & marketing] hype,
- first 9% of the content is introducing themselves
- next 90% of the content is there to serve the hype.
= 1% useful content left (minus the patting themselves on the back?)
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil. Synonyms: pest, plague, CCP
Honestly I have no idea what is happening these days. It seems everyone agrees that new technology needs to appear fast and frequently, but I don't think anybody actually understands why they are doing it.
Yet another downside of such an interconnected world: the easier it is to reach people, the more effort we need to expend to make sure we are the most popular.
What stuff that was mentioned?!
If you mean the technology I specifically mentioned as exciting me?
Yes then, yes I plan to use them. At least winUI and blazor webassembly. Rust and WinAPI, maybe.. if it's as easy as I hope!
But hey, if you are one of those people who still find WPF or .NET core intimidating.. I guess yo probably will not find it interesting...
- Rust and ... WinUI? at least Rust and Windows API
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
I live nowhere near a grocery store and have them delivered. After all this virus stuff started, I could not get half the things I ordered. The other day a received two boxes; one packed nice and neat, the other one was filled by some who thought just throwing everything in was OK. I am lucky they did not break anything.
Here is a good one: My Order: Baking powder. (out of stock) There Substitute: Arman Hamer baking soda freezer deodorizer. (Ya Right! )
Luckily they had more orders than they could fill that day and canceled my order. Not, mind you, reschedule for another day, just canceled.
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
When Corona hit, I made a revision of the inventory list, and deciced to make a monthly check:
First, for each kind of product to ensure that I am not below the minimum threshold.
Second: In my very simplistic spreadsheet (no sor of calculation, its only function is to manage a table of rows and columns), I have not only entered the amount in store, but also the "Best Before" date, to remind myself of what I've got down in the basement that I shold make use of before it gets too old.
One element that I have found handy: In the lefmost column, identifying the product, I have also indicated a "typical" best-before interval, both as a reminder of which goods should not tbe stored for too long, and in those cases where I stock stuff where I cannot find any BB.
I do not have everything listed in my inventory. "Baking powder" was actually missing. That has do do with me not using it too often, but that might change (and I know how!). I guess that the stuff has a quite long shelf life, so I might very well buy a new box long before the old one is empty.
So, thanks for the reminder.
Btw: I do get surprises now and then: A few years back, I discovered that my salt was way past its Best Before date. Huh?? NaCl is NaCli - isn't it? If it deteriorates with age, what does it deteriorate to?? Anyway, the bag was almost empty, so soon after, I had to buy a new bag anyway. Now that bag is past its BB by more than a year! They say we are using too much salt in our food. I just can't believe that applies to me ...
Probably the BB refers to the "danger" of the salt clumping. So for long-time "emergency" storage, I am considering buying another bag, making sure that it is reasonaby dry (by leaving it for at least 24 h in at most 30% relative humidity at 25 degees C), and then vacuum seal it before it goes down to the basement. I do not need much salt to alter the taste of my food, but I can easily imagine situations where I might want to use salt to preserve food, in particular in case of a power outage in mid summer.
I suspect the reason is the same as here.
Everything meant for human consumption has to have a best before date by law. And the law makes no room for exceptions, because that list of exceptions would be to long, indistinct and full of ambiguities.
The manufacturers happily oblige, because there will always be that idiot throwing away a bag of sugar out of date, and then they can sell more.
The last year we have had a number of products being labeled "Best Before so-and-so, but may be perfectly fine long thereafter", or something like that. We are getting back to the moral from my childhood: You never throw away food! ... There has been several TV programs and news reports about it the last year or two, people who manage to live exclusively on "throwaway food" without any problems (one store chain has for at least a year had as a rule that any food expiring the same day, or is past Best Before, is yours for free), etc.
Today it is very negative for the image of a food producer if it is revealed that he throws away food that could be eaten. The food stores cannot legally sell stuff past the last day of consumption (I am not sure if it is as strict for Best Before). Almost all stores have a "discount shelf" for food that has only a few days left. So instead of throwing it away, I can buy it at half price. I see lots of people searching those shelves. The stores are getting better at estimating the sales volume, so ever more often the discount shelves are almost empty.
So consumers are learning not to waste food. In our canteen at work, we frequently can find e.g. stews where one ingredient is the meat or fish that was not sold out the day before; they take pride in not throwing away any food. Now the food industry itself is being attacked, and they are improving (but have a long way to go!). One TV program about the poulty industry revealed that hens produce eggs for a year, then they are killed and used as filling in concrete (it sounds crazy to me!) - customers want chicken, not hens. But after this program was broadcast, buyers started asking for hens, and it became available in the stores. The third major actor is the public institutions, like hospitals and schools and old age homes: They consider health security so important that they rather throw away than run any sort of risk.
One TV program about the poulty industry revealed that hens produce eggs for a year, then they are killed and used as filling in concrete (it sounds crazy to me!)
Yes, that's pure bullshit! Sounds like vegan propaganda to me.
No one would put organic materials in concrete, it would be really bad for the quality.
And no one would raise and feed a chicken for a whole year, to just use it for one more year. That's stupid.
Hens are considered productive for about five to seven years. After that they're going to slaughter like any other chicken. They're just not used for the same purpose as chickens are. They become dog food, chicken stock and ground chicken meat patties and such things.
In contrary to popular propaganda, the food industry isn't wasteful. It's money we are talking about.
I checked up the details from that TV program. It is not pure bullshit, but it requires some explanation: The dead hens are processed through a "fat separator" (or whatever the English term is): The fats are isolated and rinsed, and becomes raw materieral for biodiesel production. About 40% of the original weight is water, and is damped off. The remaining mass has a high fraction of materials from feathers and bones, but it can be used for burning, to produce heat - and it so happens that those who do that are the producer of concrete. This may be just a conicidence, but so it is. The ashes from the burning are in fact mixed into the concrete, not because it improves the quality of the concrete, but it does not have a significant negative effect either. So by mixing in the ashes, the question of what to do with the ashes goes away.
So it is true that at least some of the hens go into the concrete, although after all the fats have gone to biodiesel production and the remaining organic compounds are more or less completely oxidized into gases - or as we say: burnt. Essentially, the non-organic compounds are what ends up in the concrete.
The hens running around in your garden certainly can give you eggs for a number of years. But in this super-cost-sensitive industry, they must keep the production at maximum all the time: From age about half a year to a year and a half, each hen lays one egg a day - approximately 360 eggs. The hens running freely around on the farm of your grandpa in the 1900s, he most likely had a yield less than half of that. After the hen is around 78 weeks (1.5 years) old, the yield starts dininishing. Quite soon, it is more economical to replace the "old" hen with a young one that manages to produce an egg a day. The cost of maintaining 7500 hens (the size of the first farm visisted by the TV team) is a function of the number of hens, regardless of egg production. Getting one egg every second day instead of every day reduces the cost only marginally. But the farm's income is a direct function of then number of eggs laid. So they keep the hens in production for a year, before they are killed. Or slaughtered.
The TV team followed the dead hens (killed by gassing) all the way to the recirculation plant, specializing in processing of all sorts of organic waste, not just hens but also e.g. residues from the slaughter houses, turning it all into oil products and a mass that can be burned for heating, into ashes. So they are used, but not as meat. Not for eating.
The biggest chicken slaughter house in Norway explained that chicken have much more developed, and stronger, legs than egg-laying hens. After slaughting, they are hung by their legs on this transport rail that takes them through a lot of robotized processing steps, from feathering to removing entrails and flushing all the blood off. This handling strains the legs so much that a hen's legs would break; they would have to make significant adjustments to the processing line to handle hens. So this egg farm who wanted to market hen's meat rather than burning them, had to go across the border to Sweden to find a poulty slaughter house that could take in 7500 hens; there were none in Norway. In Sweden, there is an established market for ground meat, meat balls etc. from egg laying hens; I hope that we could have a similar development in Norway.
I have been thinking that maybe, when I retire, would like to have a few hens in my garden: The chicken you buy is just a substrate for "Mixed Spice for Chicken" - it has very litte tast of its own. Nothing like a well matured hen! The chicken grows to full size in 28 days; that is not enough time to develop any taste! (So I prefer turkey to chicken; turkey has at least some taste!) But I would do it as much for the meat as for the eggs! If the hen lays one egg a day for five years before I slaughter it, that is 1800 eggs for each slaughtered hen! So if I decide to go for that, I most likely would take out the hens after at most two years. And my friends and neighbours would probably spend far less on their egg budget than they used to... (I think the eggs of today also has a very watered out taste compared to eggs in my childhood. I guess each hen produces as much egg taste as before, but today it is spread over 2-3 times as many eggs! I guess that I would go for races that lays fewer, but more tasteful eggs, of such races are available.)
Glad you clarified, I thought I was in the wrong movie.
Yes, Calciumoxide from bones is certainly used in concrete, in the old times the bones were burned and ground and fed to animals again, but since the mad cow disease that practice had to stop. No more bonfires.
My grandfathers hens (yes he had hens ) certainly laid less than 180 eggs every year, they only laid eggs in the light part of the year. No eggs in the winter. That's why we celebrate Easter with eggs.
That's also the reason why the egg factories of today are having the light on all the time. No sleep for egg producing hens.
It's correct that the cost of the hens is basically constant no matter how many eggs they lay, they all eat approximately the same from one month of age, and lay their first egg at about six months of age.
So that's five months of unproductive eating the first year. So the egg laying frequency must basically drop to half after the first productive year for it to make sense to exchange them that early.
I'm having some doubts.
Member 7989122 wrote:
The biggest chicken slaughter house in Norway explained that chicken have much more developed, and stronger, legs than egg-laying hens. After slaughting, they are hung by their legs on this transport rail that takes them through a lot of robotized processing steps, from feathering to removing entrails and flushing all the blood off. This handling strains the legs so much that a hen's legs would break; they would have to make significant adjustments to the processing line to handle hens. So this egg farm who wanted to market hen's meat rather than burning them, had to go across the border to Sweden to find a poulty slaughter house that could take in 7500 hens; there were none in Norway.
I'm surprised, I thought the problem with weak legs was in the old times when the hens were caged and couldn't move, but todays hens are free roaming with stronger legs.
How old was this program?
Member 7989122 wrote:
I have been thinking that maybe, when I retire, would like to have a few hens in my garden
Then you will learn that all the eggs you don't find will get smelly after a while.
Member 7989122 wrote:
Nothing like a well matured hen!
Indeed. In Germany you can buy so called "Suppenhuhn", they're tougher but also tastier than chicken.
Member 7989122 wrote:
I think the eggs of today also has a very watered out taste compared to eggs in my childhood. I guess each hen produces as much egg taste as before, but today it is spread over 2-3 times as many eggs! I guess that I would go for races that lays fewer, but more tasteful eggs, of such races are available.
It's more depending on the food than the "concentration". Free roaming hens in the garden eat anything from grass and insects to worms, while factory chicken mostly eat grains to grow fast.
So that's five months of unproductive eating the first year. So the egg laying frequency must basically drop to half after the first productive year for it to make sense to exchange them that early. I'm having some doubts.
That's what they told in this TV series. It might be of some importance that in this one hen house, all the hens were of the same age; they renewed all 7500 hens once a year, killing them all (with CO2) in a single operation. I guess that saves a lot of management, where they do not have to keep track of the age of each individal hen. If they had chosen to keep them longer (but still same age), their delivery volume would not be stable, but gradually decline, and the buyers wouldn't get the expected volume of eggs. Then, suddenly, when you renew the flock, you have more eggs than the customers are prepared to buy. By keeping a steady production volume, customers have a steady supply, and you can be sure to sell what you produce.
You could, of course, set up three separate hen houses of 2500 each, and divide the outdoors area into three separate ones, with fences, and make sure that no hen can ever sneak over to another age group. Then you could have stocks of, say, 7-18, 19-30 and 31-42 months of age. But three henhouses are more expensive than one henhouse (even if they are each much smaller). Taking care of three flocks requires more work that taking care of one. And your total production would go down.
I guess analysts may have differing opinions of the economics of letting the hens live longer, and of age stratification. If you know each hen by name and hacking date, it is probably different from having 7500 hens. And having 50,000 hens in six henhouses, with a dozen people employed, makes age stratification far easier than if you have a family farm where you do all the work yourself. So "Your Medaian-hen-age May Vary", as they say in other businesses...
I've got a lot of old books. This 80 page booklet "Poultry farming at home" from 1905 states that "With rational treatment, a hen will probably not be worth keeping for more than three years, many hens no more than two. We can estimate the life time of a hen to around 30 months." So even back then, they did not recommend keeping the hens very much past their high season!
I'm surprised, I thought the problem with weak legs was in the old times when the hens were caged and couldn't move, but todays hens are free roaming with stronger legs. How old was this program?
They experienced some problems and delays: The Swedish slaughter house didn't satisfy all the requirements of the food chain that was going to sell products, and they didn't find a new one until the first flock of hens had to be killed off in the "traditional" way, to make room for the next generation. It ended up with the Norwegian slaughter house adapting one production line for the next batch, in the fall of 2016. So the filming that started in the fall of 2015 was not completed until the fall of 2016, and the series was put on the air in January 2017.
These hens were most certainly free-roaming! You can see the program host chasing hens in the birch forest and under bushes.
The people at the slaughterhouse told that hens that have been into high intensity egg production often suffer form osteoporosis. My guess is that there are limits to how much calcium a hen can absorb from the food (whether found in the green grass or it comes as fodder). Laying one egg a day drains the hen for so much calcium that its skeleton suffers. In the old days, with half as many eggs or less, the calcium drain was significantly less; this may have been just as significant as giving the hens physical exercize!
I cheked the NRK archives: The program about the hens is available, with no geographical restrictions, at NRK TV – FBI redder høna[^]. It is all Norwegian (but a Swede will probably understand it).
This is the first in a four-part series; the next parts also adress the demant for "perfect" vegetables, and the burning of goat kids that noone wants.
Last Visit: 10-Aug-20 21:43 Last Update: 10-Aug-20 21:43