4 ms·

The food computer idea was one that industry had working a decade before under the name growth chambers. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117189568344

The food computer idea was one that industry had working a decade before under the name growth chambers. https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/1171895683449856003 https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117189568344985600... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20chambers https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20...

api 7y ago
Ahh, but those things didn't have the MIT name associated with them. I really can't stand the elite university system. It's not that these schools are bad, just that many others are also good but don't have the brand.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Are the stories about how awesome places like MIT were in the past wrong, or is it just that these days they're riding on the reputation earned in the 70s?
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Neither. MIT was and is awesome. That the Media Lab had a lot of people gifted with PR skills does not detract from the outsized contribution MIT faculty and graduates make in terms of publications, research or economic impact.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Ah, OK. My contact surface with MIT is through a) various old lectures of theirs I watched, and b) the "hot stuff" that I read about (which I guess is mostly from the Media Lab). The former was awesome, the latter not so much.
whyenot 7y ago
That tweet is snarky, but it's also wrong. Growth chambers have indeed been commercially available for over 50 years, but a "food computer" appears to be a little different, because it also includes the plumbing and reservoirs for growing plants hydroponically.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  The difference is that it's too small to grow a meaningful amount of food. Nevermind the required energy inputs.
- jjoonathan 7y ago
  Are you familiar enough with the high-end growth chamber market to make informed statements about "food computer" features not being available? Or are you just saying that low-end growth chambers also exist that don't include "food computer" features?
raverbashing 7y ago
This whole thread is gold and I was going to post it here (especially the items before the tweet about the "food computer") But this "food computer" is what happens when you think smart people are smart with everything or that they know everything. They aren't and they don't. "MIT Built a Theranos for plants" is a headline that's true in a lot of levels (further down in the thread) (Not to mention all the stuff about reputation laundering)
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
I'd like to add that most (not 100% that all of it) of the functionality is available for commercial greenhouses, with hydroponics, micro-climate, leds, etc. We are talking about a massive building that puts amazon warehouse to shame. That's how you make a return on this technology. Now, most of it is proprietary, expensive, and the control systems are fairly basic, so there is scope for an open source project, for improvement, for openness and usability.

api 7y ago

Ahh, but those things didn't have the MIT name associated with them. I really can't stand the elite university system. It's not that these schools are bad, just that many others are also good but don't have the brand.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Are the stories about how awesome places like MIT were in the past wrong, or is it just that these days they're riding on the reputation earned in the 70s?
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Neither. MIT was and is awesome. That the Media Lab had a lot of people gifted with PR skills does not detract from the outsized contribution MIT faculty and graduates make in terms of publications, research or economic impact.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Ah, OK. My contact surface with MIT is through a) various old lectures of theirs I watched, and b) the "hot stuff" that I read about (which I guess is mostly from the Media Lab). The former was awesome, the latter not so much.

whyenot 7y ago

That tweet is snarky, but it's also wrong. Growth chambers have indeed been commercially available for over 50 years, but a "food computer" appears to be a little different, because it also includes the plumbing and reservoirs for growing plants hydroponically.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
The difference is that it's too small to grow a meaningful amount of food. Nevermind the required energy inputs.
jjoonathan 7y ago
Are you familiar enough with the high-end growth chamber market to make informed statements about "food computer" features not being available? Or are you just saying that low-end growth chambers also exist that don't include "food computer" features?

raverbashing 7y ago

This whole thread is gold and I was going to post it here (especially the items before the tweet about the "food computer") But this "food computer" is what happens when you think smart people are smart with everything or that they know everything. They aren't and they don't. "MIT Built a Theranos for plants" is a headline that's true in a lot of levels (further down in the thread) (Not to mention all the stuff about reputation laundering)

ClumsyPilot 7y ago

I'd like to add that most (not 100% that all of it) of the functionality is available for commercial greenhouses, with hydroponics, micro-climate, leds, etc. We are talking about a massive building that puts amazon warehouse to shame. That's how you make a return on this technology. Now, most of it is proprietary, expensive, and the control systems are fairly basic, so there is scope for an open source project, for improvement, for openness and usability.