I've tried this myself and researched a bunch at the time.
Most people suggest no more than 1 fruiting plant in a reservoir this size (and even several times larger) because what it will do is take the nutrients it needs and leave the ones it doesn't.
So say you have A B and C, fruiting plants need a lot of C. That means that A and B build up in the form of salts and can stop them taking up other nutrients.
So the only way to get them going to any real degree is frequent full changes, not just topping up.
All that said, you're experimenting and having fun and thats completely fine, just sharing what I've learned.
I did this 2 years ago, and this year ended up growing monstrous 2 metre tall vining varieties in 20L semi-kratky buckets.
Incredibly vigorous and impressive but tbh the water changes are still boring and the soil ones are far easier to maintain and doing 80% as well.
I don't think you have to torture the definition at all. If one society has substantially more redistribution, public provision, organised labour and constraints on capital than another, describing it as relatively further left is a perfectly ordinary and useful comparison. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Europe doesn't go nearly far enough, or to be dissatisfied with its current trajectory, and id fully agree with you, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.
I mean, yeah, it's a relative comparison. Calling one country richer, more democratic or more authoritarian than another is "semantic" in the same sense. It doesn't make those comparisons meaningless.
We're just talking about different things. You're arguing about whether Europe qualifies as meaningfully left-wing under a Marxist framework; I'm only saying Europe is further left relative to the US. They're not contradictory claims.
It feels like you're confusing 'more left' with 'left'. What makes Europe more left is the greater redistribution of wealth, stronger welfare states, universal healthcare, stronger unions and labour rights, larger public sectors and greater regulation of capital. You can argue those things don't constitute socialism, but "left-wing" and "socialist" aren't actually synonyms either.
Conversely, the US is further right through lower taxation and redistribution, a weaker welfare state, predominantly market-based healthcare, weaker unions and labour protections, less generous statutory benefits, greater reliance on private provision, and generally fewer constraints on capital. Again, none of that makes Europe socialist. It makes Europe relatively further left than the US on the conventional political spectrum.
You’re talking about imperialism, which isnt synonymous with right wing; I was talking about domestic political orientation. Europe can participate in an imperial economic system while still being, on average, considerably further left than the US on welfare, labour rights, healthcare and regulation.
It may have moved right, and imo absolutely has, but that doesnt leave them at the same spot on the scale.
I've tried this myself and researched a bunch at the time.
Most people suggest no more than 1 fruiting plant in a reservoir this size (and even several times larger) because what it will do is take the nutrients it needs and leave the ones it doesn't.
So say you have A B and C, fruiting plants need a lot of C. That means that A and B build up in the form of salts and can stop them taking up other nutrients.
So the only way to get them going to any real degree is frequent full changes, not just topping up.
All that said, you're experimenting and having fun and thats completely fine, just sharing what I've learned.
I did this 2 years ago, and this year ended up growing monstrous 2 metre tall vining varieties in 20L semi-kratky buckets.
Incredibly vigorous and impressive but tbh the water changes are still boring and the soil ones are far easier to maintain and doing 80% as well.
Still, a super fun project.
I don't think you have to torture the definition at all. If one society has substantially more redistribution, public provision, organised labour and constraints on capital than another, describing it as relatively further left is a perfectly ordinary and useful comparison. It's perfectly reasonable to argue that Europe doesn't go nearly far enough, or to be dissatisfied with its current trajectory, and id fully agree with you, but that doesn't invalidate the comparison.
Fruits plants take so much nutrition. How often are you changing the resevoir, every 1 - 2 weeks?
These are not the sort of people to take advice, period.
I mean, yeah, it's a relative comparison. Calling one country richer, more democratic or more authoritarian than another is "semantic" in the same sense. It doesn't make those comparisons meaningless.
We're just talking about different things. You're arguing about whether Europe qualifies as meaningfully left-wing under a Marxist framework; I'm only saying Europe is further left relative to the US. They're not contradictory claims.
It feels like you're confusing 'more left' with 'left'. What makes Europe more left is the greater redistribution of wealth, stronger welfare states, universal healthcare, stronger unions and labour rights, larger public sectors and greater regulation of capital. You can argue those things don't constitute socialism, but "left-wing" and "socialist" aren't actually synonyms either.
Conversely, the US is further right through lower taxation and redistribution, a weaker welfare state, predominantly market-based healthcare, weaker unions and labour protections, less generous statutory benefits, greater reliance on private provision, and generally fewer constraints on capital. Again, none of that makes Europe socialist. It makes Europe relatively further left than the US on the conventional political spectrum.
You’re talking about imperialism, which isnt synonymous with right wing; I was talking about domestic political orientation. Europe can participate in an imperial economic system while still being, on average, considerably further left than the US on welfare, labour rights, healthcare and regulation.
It may have moved right, and imo absolutely has, but that doesnt leave them at the same spot on the scale.
Calling both the US and EU right wing definitely misses a metric fuckton of nuance though.
Being able to remotely update games after release definitely lowered the bar for release considerably.
Im not saying there were no bugs before that, definitely not.
I imagine that's the difference the majority and all?
Games having dodgy performance on release is effectively normal now.
It makes more sense to rate based on the gameplay otherwise 99% of releases would be 1 star.
Like an accelerating arms race.