I suppose there's some regimen where you carefully monitor every plant sprayed with a weedkiller is monitored for survival and killed with fire if it survives, or some other extreme measure to be sure there are no survivors to develop resistance, but realistically the weeds are going to develop resistances over time.

And ... so what? The value of a weedkiller like glyphosate is using it to kill a lot of weeds in wide-scale agriculture. If the weeds develop a resistance to it, and we stop using it because it's no longer effective, we're not really in a worse position than if we never used it at all. It's not like there are some really bad weeds we need to save it to be able to combat.

As for solutions, I agree with you that there's no single clean solution to mitigate resistance. But it seems like some weeds' reproduction paths are better suited for resistance than others (Kochia produces tens of thousands of seeds and spread similar to tumbleweeds, so there's a lot of potential for mixing and genetic diversity relative to other weeds).

https://saskpulse.com/resources/kochia-resistance-update-res...

It's also inevitable: there are weeds which have substantially changed their appearance to more closely resemble crops as an adaptive strategy just to human driven control measures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry

Which is a problem which mechanical weed control measures will exacerbate probably in bizarre ways (e.g. the weed is no longer selecting against the human vision system but instead a machine vision model)

Edit: though probably worth noting that encouraging weeds to compete against a machine vision model opens up interesting possibilities - e.g. encoding a failure mode for something which the active model can't spot, then running it competitively against a model trained to sport the adaptation and then switching back over when your hit rate falls below a certain level - trap the weed in a controlled local minima. You can't replace human image recognition and new compounds are hard, but updating software is easy.

Notice how in both of the above, there is no third party forcing me to pay for anybody’s bad choices.

You are paying for it with your rent, just like you're paying property taxes.

The other thing about tractors is that the three point hitches, PTOs, etc etc, have been standardized forever, so there's very little lock in in terms of, swap out your JD for and IH and away you go, so I'm curious if eg modern seed drills have any fancy tech which locks you in.

Technically there are standards, but you know how that goes in the real world... Funnily enough, a friend bought a new tractor and planter, both from John Deere, and they weren't even compatible with each other. The tractor needed to have the cab removed to install the necessary hardware (ethernet) to be compatible with the planter.

> have been standardized forever

Hydraulic hose couplers didn't find common adoption until the mid-80s/early-90s, which is surprisingly late.

The economics of row-crop agriculture is "you gotta farm more land". That means spending as much time in the field as you can with as big a machine as you can.

So not only is time you spend fixing your tractor yourself time you're not spending on your primary job, it's also working on a machine that's just monstrously huge. Delegating that work to a specialist with specialized tools is a very reasonable way to live.

There are authorized dealers who are not John Deere directly, but they are completely subservient to John Deere (they have to be otherwise they will not get access to the software tooling required to fix equipment), the semantic difference to a farmer is inconsequential, you will be overcharged[1] and scalped because the consequences of not paying is a multi-million-dollar heap of scrap because you cannot fix it yourself.

There are no independent tools to work on this equipment because selling a license to a 3rd party software would be in breach 1201 of the DMCA

[1]: https://apnews.com/article/john-deere-repair-lawsuit-settlem... [2]: https://apnews.com/article/deere-farm-repair-tractors-monopo...

John Deere's whole business model has been built around being the most repairable — ensuring that you can get the parts when you need them, not days or weeks later. I own farm equipment from all the major brands and I've been burned by that before. Deere is undeniably the winner in repairability.

They are quite protective of their intellectual property, that is true. Although what tech company isn't? I remember the time I wanted to see the service manual and it took a wink and a nod to get the service tech to decrypt it for me.

But, I mean, he did it, so... The fun thing about employees is that they are real people who don't really care what some nebulous figurehead in a far away place has to say. Especially when those employees don't work for Deere in the first place. I have no idea where you got that bizarre idea. You should step foot on a farm sometime.

Boeing and Airbus are incredibly protective of intellectual property for both safety reasons and protecting the process. They still provide repair manuals.

There are hundreds of sensors on modern John Deere tractors they REQUIRE the entire firmware to its respective module because they are locked to your serial number, that means you could buy two identical tractors and swap a part between them and both tractors would cease to operate correctly because the module rejects the non-programmed sensor, this is unacceptable.

Now you might say well John Deere has rights to protect its own IP to which I absolutely agree, and I also agree they have the right to protect themselves from liability arisen from say someone installing an aftermarket sensor. Why not make a disclaimer appear saying "This equipment is fitted with a non-certified aftermarket part) rather than making it completely useless "contact dealer" is not a valid diagnostic message.

Let's say you wanted to hack your tractor to install an aftermarket sensor, well now you have to break the digital lock (encrypted payload files) that is installed by John Deere congratulations that's actually against the law even if you own the equipment.

This isn't about emissions or safety or anything else it's about shitty rent-seeking behavior that directly disenfranchises everyone.

When you purchase something, you should be able to own it.

Some years ago I was stunned to read (tractor forum) a US based farmer lamenting even though JD parts used, they'd had a third party service their tractor, and verified via diagnostics ... and basically had to wait for a JD tech to travel out and unlock their tractor so it could work. I'd assume that's the sort of behaviour that did John Deere in - travel and unlocking fees ffs.

I used to like JD, I've got one though 70s vintage.

That entirely depends on your business goals. If you want to leverage debt to amass wealth you need scale to eke out a living after the debt burden takes most of your potential profit. The 4020 is going to fall well short of what is required there. Those who see farming as an income source rather than a wealth generator, however, don't need scale and can do quite well with the venerable 4020. Eight rows is plenty when you don't have the bank breathing down your neck wondering if you are going to cover your six figure loan payment this month.

It's a lot like the business of tech, really. Some want to build the startup that never turns a profit but sells for billions years into the future, while others want to build the small "mom and pop" that offers a lifestyle, even if it never makes them rich. Both are valid and viable approaches. It depends on what you want out of it.

One of these days I'm going to buy one to restore, the way other men but the cars of their youth.

You may be able to lane split in a semi, but it also has excessive environmental impact.

Yeah, there are a shocking number of accidents which basically amount to "they tried to swerve and it went badly".

You can concoct a few scenarios where other drivers are violating the road rules so much as to basically be trying to murder you -- the simplest example is "you are stopped at a light and a giant truck is barreling towards you too fast to stop".

If you are a normal driver, you probably learn about this when you wake up in the hospital, but an autonomous vehicle could be watching how fast vehicles are approaching from behind you. There's going to be a wide range of scenarios where it will be clear the truck is not going to stop but there's still time to do something (for instance, a truck going 65mph takes around 5 seconds to stop, so if it's halfway through its stopping distance, you've got around 2.5 seconds to maneuver out of the way).

That does leave you all sorts of room to come up with realistic trolley problems.

But all require a human (or malicious) driver on one hand. The more rule-following AVs on the road, the fewer the opportunities for such trolley problems.

And I'd still argue that debating these ex ante is, while philosophically fascinating, not a practical discussion. I'm not seeing a case where one would code anything further than collision avoidance and e.g. pre-activating restraints.

The typical human preference WRT the trolly problem ("don't take an action which leads to deaths, even if it would save more lives") is also a reasonable -- maybe the only reasonable answer -- to these hypotheticals.

Ie, move against the light to avoid getting rear ended, but not if you're going to run over a pedestrian or cause an accident with another vehicle trying to do so. (Even if getting rear ended would push you into the pedestrian or other car.)

Airline pilots aren't supposed to take a nap, and there are occasionally articles about the various things that have gone wrong because the pilots weren't paying attention.