• 8 Posts
  • 59 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Aquileo | cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2025

Aquileo | help-circle
  • Aberration13@lemmy.worldOPtoGardening@lemmy.worldMid Michigan Planting recommendations for these?
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    1
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Sure it does, some like their roots drier or wetter, some have tap roots that might reach all the way down this tube to soil underneath, others are fibrous

    Cat mint would grow in this just fine but it’s not edible, alternatively I doubt raspberries would like this much though. But my overall range of knowledge is limited. There are hundreds of species with unique growing conditions and while I could probably come up with a few that would grow in these I am asking because maybe there are others I wouldn’t think of or don’t know about.



  • Aberration13@lemmy.worldOPtoGardening@lemmy.worldMid Michigan Planting recommendations for these?
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    1
    Aquileo | arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Ik you’re trying to be helpful and I am aware my described preference is suboptimal but it kinda feels like you didn’t read most of what I said, I am trying to avoid extra work and expense so embedding them in the ground and buying soil amendments are the exact things I am avoiding. Also none of those are perennial to my knowledge? I am looking for perennials that will sit happy in this filled with (good quality) soil from the ground. If there are none that would fit those requirements that’s ok by me and would be good info to know as well but I only really picked them up because they were free, if it’s extra effort beyond filling and planting and maybe watering a few times to get them started it’s probably not worth it to me with the type of garden I am growing.












  • Aberration13@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worlddo not
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s why I suggested a higher power rating than 1 watt, if you get a laser with a decent power output it won’t take minutes, it will take seconds, the higher the output the faster the camera dies. If you get something fairly high power you could essentially take a camera out instantly, a quick flick on and off directly at the sensor with a beam that has a low consistent spread of maybe 1 cm per 100m or so with high output would fry the entire optical sensor at once, or alternatively a beam with high output and very small focus with minimal spread could simply slice through the camera entirely, focus it well enough and you could cut cameras off poles at their mounting points and wires at a distance and just walk away with the whole camera, some of the new ones have solar panels too which are actually useful and also incur more cost to replace while being useful for cutting down your electricity bill assuming you prevent them from breaking when they fall, in theory you could make back the money you spend on the laser that way too whether by using the panels or selling them. Though selling has its own risks.



  • Aberration13@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worlddo not
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I wouldn’t say more discreet or efficient, but cheaper yes, at least in the short run but there will always be systems that are hard to hit with a balloon due to their height and if all they need is some solvent in a backpack sprayer to undo your work then in the long run you’ll need to buy a lot of paint and balloons. Efficient to me is carrying something that fits in a backpack and can be charged on a home outlet and take out hundreds

    It does have a much lower upfront cost though which is a consideration


  • Aberration13@lemmy.worldtoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worlddo not
    Aquileo | link
    Aquileo | fedilink
    English
    Aquileo | arrow-up
    14
    ·
    3 months ago

    I am pretty sure that at that wattage it would not be able to significantly destroy them, you could burn out pixels in the camera but unless you want to stand there for 10+ minutes shining it on the lens I don’t think you’re going to significantly hamper the vision system.

    It needs to be more powerful than a class 4 consumer grade device.

    Not that you can’t do it, but if you want to do it more effectively I am pretty sure something stronger would be required than a 1 watt device, Ideally you would want something that can just melt the photoreceptor entirely.

    To further your efficacy you might want to use something in a wavelength range that is invisible to most cameras since any footage prior to melting is probably still saved somewhere and available to police. No visible beam means it’s significantly harder to pin it on you.Be warned however lasers in that intensity are very dangerous to eyesight and even incidental beam reflections off surfaces can cause damage to eyesight almost immediately, compounding that by making it a wavelength invisible to cameras you are also making it invisible to human eyes making it even easier to accidentally blind yourself without the right eye protection. Though it would be more difficult to aim if you can’t see it (there are ways around this as well such as buying a small camera that can see that wavelength and hooking it up to a video feed you use to aim it, potentially an in glasses screen (these are becoming much cheaper and readily available these days) as now you can order glasses to protect from that wavelength and put the lenses over your screen glasses and see exactly where you are pointing it without any risk of eye damage and very minimal risk of being caught.