It's a matter of when, not if, and that _when_ was more than a decade ago. Round-up resistant Kochia (a weed) has spread across Western Canada and was first observed in 2011. Pretty difficult stuff to get out of your field once it takes root.
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).
I'm wondering if it's really the framing of the problem that's inflating the number of individuals responding with blue (similar to certain confusingly-worded ballot measures).
Suppose the problem were worded in a more concrete way: "I have a large container ship that I'm draining the ballasts out of tomorrow. If less than 50% of <whatever population we're working with> get on the ship, it will capsize and everyone who chose to get on it will die. You can choose either to get on the ship (blue button) or refuse to (red button)."
Would one hold a person guilty for not getting on the ship? Would a perfectly empathetic person even board that ship?
Of course the framing affects how people vote. The thought experiment demands we use the framing as given. Some people might reason themselves into your analogy, others won’t.
So is your general take on the problem that because the way it's worded (blue => "everyone survives", red => "only those who press red survive"), enough people would choose blue that therefore the empathetic/moral thing to do would be to also choose blue to save them? I can get on board with that line of reasoning
In the Slashdot days, I suspect the weight of views would be on the side of "remove the warning labels, let Darwin sort it out." Interesting change in "hacker" culture.
This doesn't seem to be a game that tries to be particularly clever--one button could kill you, the other certainly won't. Trusting that nearly everyone will avoid pressing the button that could kill them seems a reasonable assumption, and it's not necessarily an indication of a lack of altruism.
Let me frame it another way and see if you still consider it homicide:
There's a cruise ship that needs to have a certain weight in order to not capsize. That weight threshold happens to be at 50% of the population (for whatever population we're considering in the original question). If the ship capsizes, everyone on it dies.
You're given the option: either get on the cruise ship or don't. Not to take an actual cruise, not for some other intrinsic prize, just file on it for a minute and then get off.
I don't see how those who refuse the risk of dying on the ship are complicit in the deaths of those who willingly choose to hop on it knowing the risks involved
I have no idea what that scenario means. How does the buoyancy work? How did it not capsize when there was no one on it? You're loading people above the waterline, to be on/off in a minute, so that makes it more likely to capsize, not less. How come the people off the ship can't help the people in the water? And so on, and so on.
If a rigid airship is being blown about, and might be unmoored, a trained ground crew will jump on the lines because with enough weight they can save the ship and its crew. If too few grab a line, it will unmoor. If you are on the ground crew, and you let go of the line because you are worried about your own life, are you complicit in the deaths caused by the ensuing airship crash?
You don’t get to reframe the problem with different wording or circumstances to demonstrate your intelligence to others before they choose and you choose. That’s part of the thought experiment.
Incidentally, this describes what I believe to be the great difficulty of PhD research. You have to take a topic you find interesting and read all possible related work in it, which tends to result in significant scope creep as you realize just how much there is that already does you want to do. Having exhausted your initial energy and excitement for the project, you have to force yourself the remaining 20-30% of he way to the finish line to get that work to a publishable state.
Day 1: We aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of an existing industrial catalyst in a novel application that has not seen commercial usage, potentially lowering cost of production of precursors for essential medications
Day 400: Having thoroughly described a universal theory of everything, we set out to build an experimental apparatus in orbit at a Lagrange point capable of detecting a universal particle which acts a mediator for all observable forces in the known universe.
I think it’s the opposite—you start out bright eyed and busy tailed thinking you will do something big over the next five years…
You find out your idea has been tried, five different ways, all of them failed. Two of your follow up ideas were already done, and had some impact but not as much as expected. Finally you have an idea nobody has done, you try it and it flops—maybe somebody had tried it before but their results were so bad they couldn’t publish.
Then in the end you have done a tiny increment over the state of the art, and you want to persuade the PhD committee this is enough and they should let you graduate.
I mean, part of the systemic problem here is that "results were so bad they couldn't publish."
That shouldn't ever be a thing. As long as your methods are sound, it should never matter whether your results are just completely random noise; that's still an important result.
Right :) I was trying to write the bleakest possible version, and in the bleakest, your own unpublished idea is not actually original, it’s just a failure of the system to record negative results.
Like, if you stay focused, is it even really a side project?
Which is why my 2d top down sprite-based rpg now has a 3d procedural animation engine, a procedural 3d character generator with automagic rigging, a population simulator that would put Europa Universalis to shame if I ever get around to finishing it (ha!) a pixel art editor, a 2d procedural animation engine using active ragdolls.........
You might wonder why a 2d game needs 3d procedural animation, well...
Using coding assistance tools to revive projects you never were going to finish (matthewbrunelle.com)
228 points by speckx 12 hours ago | flag | hide | 122 comments
Day 1: we aim to demonstrate the role of myosin II in the initiation of adhesions in migrating fibroblasts
Day 1047: we aim to get one preparation of fibroblasts to express GFP-myosin and survive long enough to film, just one, come on, please, twenty cells is enough, is that too much to ask
This is why so many research papers have "Towards" as the first word in the title. I.e. we didn't actually achieve our original goal, but here's a writeup of what progress we made.
I heard academic research described like this: Imagine yourself inside a balloon. The body of research in your field is represented by the current size of the balloon. Now put your fingertip on the wall of the balloon and push. That little indentation is your Ph.D.
Another analogy is a lake: The lake is the current body of research, you walk up and dump in an additional bucket of water. That's your Ph.D.
Lol. That one. I wish I had seen that before I began my PhD. It describes the anti-climactic and exhilarating feeling you have simultaneously at your thesis defense.
I feel one also has to have a drive for “marketing” their idea and that is 50% of the PhD. Or at least a blind enthusiasm that they are doing something significantly better than previous work.
How else does one stand up and proclaim that the fruits of years of labor and expense of a small fortune is an incremental improvement ?
While working on a project for a class, I once found a solution to a particular problem that hadn’t been really solved. Got to do a conference poster. Someone asked if it was my PhD topic (it wasn’t). I felt it was too silly to even count toward such. The problem likely had not been unsolved because very few ever cared.
(I eventually dropped out)
Instead I write software mostly with no UI that nobody ever sees. But I enjoy the work and can convince myself that someone finds it useful.
I worked at a chair for 12 years - in that time I've seen a lot of PhD students go through this.
If it helps anything at all: It's normal. At this point, you've already proven you're smart and knowledgeable. Now, the universe wants to see if you can also finish what you've started. That's the main thing a PhD proves: That you can take an incredibly interesting topic and then do all the boring stuff that they need you to do to be formally compliant with arbitrary rules.
Focus on finishing. Reduce the scope as much as possible again. Down to your core message (or 3-4 core messages, I guess, for paper-based dissertations).
This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.
When I did my MSc thesis he told me it was a pretty good PhD. (Before giving me a months work in corrections.) I didn’t understand back then, but I understand now. It was small, replicatable and novel (still is)! Just replicate three times and be done with it. You’ve proven your mastery. Now start something serious.
> This is spot on. My dad was a professor and had dozens of PhDs. The only thing differentiating them (as I remember him telling me) was the resolve to keep work as /tiny/ as possible. Who is remember for his/her PhD? Only the smallest cream of the crop. He even made good fun of worthless thesis by (then) well known professors. It’s not about your PhD.
My professor once told me he presented at a small conference, the whole audience everybody had PhD in mathematics and maybe 2 of the 50 or so people in the audience could follow along. The point he was trying to make is at some point the people in the audience were not really interested in what was being presented because it is difficult to just follow along some really niche topic.
There was a book I read a couple years back called "Mathematica: A Secret World of Intuition and Curiosity", by David Bessis.
He discussed this topic and how generally it's left to those who are more notable in a field to ask the 'dumb' questions everyone else is afraid to ask. And such questions often need to be asked to get the audience on board and open the floodgates with areas of niche research - the speaker themself is often too far into the rabbit hole to discern the difference between opaque and obvious.
So it stands to reason, at smaller conferences this would be a big problem, with fewer thought leaders in attendance whose reputations are intact enough that they wouldn't mind looking foolish.
If you’ve spent a significant amount of time widening the scope as far as possible to include everything interesting about your original question, and there is nothing in that whole widened scope that the audience will give a shit about, your topic is unsaveable and your advisor is a failure.
If there is something interesting enough to qualify, then reduce the scope as much as possible. It should go without saying that you shouldn’t throw out the interesting bit.
The problem that occurs in practice is “focus on finishing” leads people to finish without actually doing anything meaningful. Advisors may or may not encourage this depending on where they are in their career.
When you get on the industry job market nobody cares if it took you 3 years or 7 years to do the work, they only care if it’s meaningful.
It's been a long long time since I was the academic research world - but isn't 3 published papers pretty much the expectation for a PhD quantity of research?
Really depends on the field. Computer science research usually has pretty short cycle times. If you're working on, say, biology or anthropology, collecting data can take substantially longer.
Technical feedback yes, but always reject any career feedback from your advisor since the data shows it's unlikely a good model for future career success
Switch back and forth between trying and reviewing. Often it can be good to just try before reviewing, to get your feet wet. Don't spend too much time. Then when reviewing you're going to understand it more. Repeat this process.
But there's some things to remember that are incredibly important
- a paper doesn't *prove* something, it suggests it is *probably* right
- under the conditions of the paper's settings, which aren't yours
- just because someone had X outcome before doesn't mean you won't get Y outcome
- those small details usually dominate success
- sometimes a one liner seemingly throw away sentence is what you're missing
- sometimes the authors don't know and the answer is 5 papers back that they've been building on
- DO NOT TREAT PAPERS AS *ABSOLUTE* TRUTH
- no one is *absolutely* right, everyone is *some* degree of wrong
- other researchers are just like you, writing papers just like you
- they also look back at their old papers and say "I'm glad I'm not that bad anymore"
- a paper demonstrating your idea is a positive signal, you're thinking in the right direction
As soon as you start treating papers as "this is fact" you tend to overly generalize the results. But the details dominate so you just kill your own creativity. You kill your own ideas before you know they're right or wrong. More importantly you don't know how right or how wrong.
They're definitely deeply related. For example, a lot of works get rejected over "novelty" issues. Well, if success and/or failure depend on something seemingly small then it will almost never get through review because it seems like low novelty. Though it'll get through review if authors are convincing enough, which often leads to some minor exaggerations.
Combine that with the publish-or-perish paradigm and I think we got significant coverage. People don't even consider diving deeper into things and are encouraged to take the route of "assume paper is correct" because that's the fastest way to push out research. But if the foundation is shaky, then everything built on it is shaky too.
Which, that's a distinction in the hard and more formal fields like math and physics. They have no issues pushing out papers that may have errors in them because the process is to attack works as hard as possible. Then whatever is left is where you build again. You definitely have people take advantage of this, like Avi Loeb publishing about aliens, but it is realistically a small price to pay. And hey, even Loeb's work still contributes. If at some point it actually is aliens, then there's work existing that can be built upon. And when it continues to not be aliens, there's existing work to build on since really his problem is more that the papers just end up concluding "and this is why we can't rule out aliens!" (-__-)
Anyways, long story short, my advice is to just remember that you, and everybody else, is a blubbering idiot and it is a absolute fucking miracle a bunch of mostly hairless apes can even communicate, let alone postulate about the cosmos. At the end of the day we're all on the same team, seeking truth. Truth matters more than our egos and if we start to forget how dumb we are then we'll only hinder our pursuit of truth.
For me, it wasn't so much about mitigating this cycle as much as recognizing that the grit of pushing through that last 20-30% is actually a valuable life skill that the PhD could teach me to do, and that projects that I felt like I would never want to touch again actually started to become interesting again after I had left them for a year or so.
Acknowledge it is normal? Attempt to buy deeper into the delusion ("Yeah my work is awesome and unique!"). Use stimulants to force enthusiastic days every once in awhile?
Find a brand new hire who wants to get tenure. Getting a PhD through in 4 years is catnip for tenure at most universities (stateside). We then dropped off my dissertation in the middle of NSF funding week. I paid for it during orals (4 hours), but they all signed within a few days without comment.
Uhh... unless you plan to stay in academia? Then, this is a terrible idea.
The majority of PhD candidates deal with this because the point of a PhD is to prove you can to “normal science” [1] which boils down to “how do I make this system go from 1% observable to 1.001% observable” which is just a gate for being in the academic career field.
You’ll almost never see a PhD thesis that has anything particularly interesting, novel or directly applicable to the sciences.
> You have to take a topic you find interesting and read all possible related work in it
This is definitely the wrong way of going about a research project, and I have rarely seen anyone approach research projects this way. You should read two or at most three papers and build upon them. You only do a deep review of the research literature later in the project, once you have some results and you have started writing them down.
The usual justification is that if you don't do at least a breadth-first literature review, you can get burned by missing a paper that already does substantially what you do in your work. I've heard of extreme case where it happens a week before someone goes to defend their dissertation!
Excuse my naivety, but isn't it good if the same results get proofed in slightly different ways? This is effectively a replication, but instead of just the appliance of the experiments, you also replicate the thought process by having a slightly different approach.
It would be good (especially with the replication crisis), but historically to earn a PhD, especially at a top-tier institution, the criteria is conducting original research that produces new knowledge or unique insights.
Replicating existing results doesn't meet that criteria so unknowingly repeating someone's work is an existential crisis for PhD students. It can mean that you worked for 4-6 years on something that the committee then can't/won't grant a doctorate for and effectively forcing you to start over.
Theoretically, your advisor is supposed to help prevent this as well by guiding you in good directions, but not all advisors are created equal.
The problem is that what the “hallowed institutions” are trying to do is extremely ridiculous: turn the kind of work that scientific geniuses did into something that can be replicated by following a formula.
It’s as if a committee of middle managers got together and said, “how can we replicate and scale the work of people like Einstein?”
> The problem is that what the “hallowed institutions” are trying to do is extremely ridiculous: turn the kind of work that scientific geniuses did into something that can be replicated by following a formula.
> It’s as if a committee of middle managers got together and said, “how can we replicate and scale the work of people like Einstein?”
Or are they trying to require enough rigor and discipline so that out of 100,000 people who want to be the next Einstein, the process washes out the 99,000 who aren't willing or able to do more than throw out half-baked 'creative' ideas and expect the world to pick them up and run with them.
There's only finite attention and money for funding research, so you gotta do SOMETHING to filter out the larpers who want to take it and faff around.
I think at this point the system has eaten its own tail a bit, but there's good reason to require some level of "show me" before getting given the money to run your own research.
For the humanity? Yes, it's generally good. For that particular researcher's career? Not really. Who wants to pay for research into something that's already known?
My imagination was leaning more into the educational side than the research side of university. I see how that wouldn't be appreciated by a patron, but when you get search grants, isn't the topic discussed before starting and paying for the research? Also that is kind of the point, why topics are cleared with the chair-holding professor, which is expected to be already experienced in the subject to know where the knowledge needs to be expanded.
Unless you're already an expert in the topic a literature search is literally step 1 since you have to check if your idea has already been done before.
That's where your supervisor comes in. In most cases, they should be an expert in the field, and guide you towards a useful and novel problem.
Moreover, I am not suggesting you don't look at other papers at all. But google scholar and some quick skimming of abstracts and papers you find should suffice to check if someone has already done the work. If you start fully reading more than a handful of papers, your ideas are already locked in by what others have done, and it becomes way harder to produce something novel.
I have a family member who has discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. "just sodium headaches" doesn't really apply to her case; simply chewing a piece of gum that has aspartame, or eating a piece of meat cooked with MSG in her salad is enough to trigger them. I agree in the general sense with your comment and the article that there's no widespread danger to public health from these additives, but it doesn't mean there aren't still individuals whose health gets messed up (including legitimate headache or migraine symptoms) by these additives.
> discovered through gradual process of elimination that she gets migraines from MSG
This is definitely not true. There is no biological pathway that can do this. MSG is nearly identical to the glutamic acid in other foods. If it were true they'd be unable to tolerate parmesan cheese, soy sauce, aged meats, tomatoes, mushrooms, and seaweed.
Glutamate is considered a migraine trigger, though. Many people do avoid or limit those foods for that reason. Thankfully it doesn’t appear to be a trigger for me, because I love all those things.
There is some controversy about dietary glutamate being directly responsible for migraine. It’s common in the brain already. It’s only allowed selectively through the blood-brain barrier. However it could trigger other types of headache, and those can trigger migraines. Also, apparently more of it is formed in the brain when there are high levels of lysine and ornithine in the body. Many of the foods with high levels of glutamate also have high levels of those aminos.
High levels or low levels of sodium in the body can also be a migraine trigger. MSG is lower in sodium than table salt, but it is additional sodium. Many of the issues blamed on it though are after eating foods that contain MSG and a high amount of salt as well. That’s also true of many of the glutamate-containing foods for that matter (gravies, miso, soy sauce, aged meats).
Doctors recommend eliminating one single ingredient at a time to find your triggers. However, I’m sure many people don’t control for salt when eliminating MSG or natural food glutamate.
I agree on all your points. If someone suffers from migraines, though, it’s worth trying figuring out plausible triggers even if the evidence isn’t really solid.
It’s important not to conflate ingredients when doing an elimination diet, though. Separating restaurants or prepackaged foods at home that use MSG from those that use a lot of salt (or preservatives, or artificial dyes, or “natural flavors”, or any number of other things) is pretty difficult. I’ve seen several instances over the years of people assuming a restaurant used MSG based on getting a migraine, even when that restaurant doesn’t use MSG in any of their dishes. I’m not even a doctor, just an interested person with migraines. I’m sure a nutritionist or headache specialist could tell us stories.
There's a pretty good finding here[1] about elimination diets being inappropriate for most patients. Basically without any diagnosis of something like celiac, allergy, etc you have a high risk of misidentifying foods as causes because the co-occur with non food triggers. The literature just seems super weak for most alleged dietary triggers.
> This is definitely not true. There is no biological pathway that can do this
Nevertheless, it continues to give her migraines even in small portions where other foods don't. I don't doubt it could be some byproduct from the process of MSG salt's synthesis or cooking with it rather than the actual glutamic acid, or some allergy as others have suggested.
I wouldn't be so strong as to categorically say that MSG can't cause migraines in any of the human race as you so claim though. There's so much we don't know about human biological mechanisms in niche cases; even water can cause allergic reactions in certain individuals (see Aquagenic Urticaria). What is true generally is not always true specifically when it comes to human health.
I'm curious: have you done a (single or double) blind test where you prepare dishes (selected at random) with or without MSG/aspartame/yeast extract and record the effects?
To be clear: not saying you should, just wondering how you came the conclusion that those ingredients are the trigger.
MSG is the salt form, wherre the glutamate is bound to a sodium atom. In food, my understanding is that MSG will split into two things: sodium ion and glutamate ion. The difference between adding MSG to food and food being already high in glutamate would be the salt content.
I don't recommend telling people their subjective experience isn't true- you don't know for sure that they don't actually get migraines from MSG. I think it's fine to tell people that often their subjective experiences can be colored by prior knowledge, and people often ascribe causes to unrelated factors. (My personal belief is that most people who say they got a headache from MSG experienced a headache, but consuming glutamate was not the cause).
For some people, migraines can be triggered by things like light or certain smells. It's not at all impossible that a certain taste can also trigger them.
That's very interesting because cheese, paneer and cured meats do trigger wife's migraines. I had not considered that richness is n glutamic acid is a common factor.
The personal, anecdotal relation seems strong on the cheese and paneer component. Even if she had something not aware that it contains either of those it would trigger a migraine, sometimes not immediately though, seems to take a few to several hours.
Oh she/you should check out mast cell activation syndrome (mcas). Basically different foods increase histamine levels in the body or prevent its degradation. Old proteins and fermented foods are particularly problematic because microbes break down the protein and release histamine precursors.
Well, my dad got migraines from everything° on that list bar tomatoes - though he did from dried tomatoes, so does that count as everything on the list? I don't know the biological pathway, but it was neither self-diagnosed, self-derived, nor made from woo; he visited several real-MD neurologists before someone identified the chemical(s) at fault, and gave him a list of foods not to eat.
°In fact it was all cheeses, not just parmesan; the more aged the worse. And also chocolate, and olives. Basically anything aged or fermented. I don't know how that lines up with MSG's chemistry, but he was careful with MSG, though nothing like as avoidant as he was with soy sauce and cheese.
Migraines can possibly be triggered by cause and effect chains several intermediate causes long. It could help explain for example why certain things are triggers for certain migraine patients and not others.
Aspartame is also a trigger, but the fact that one person has multiple triggers doesn’t mean they are related at all.
Now you’re right that MSG is more than sodium. Sodium can be a headache trigger, including migraines. Glutamate is also a migraine trigger and a fairly common one. It doesn’t happen to be one for me. However, it is a neurotransmitter that is involved in pain signaling. It’s understandable how it could easily trigger a migraine or make the pain worse.
Some triggers for some people actually help other people with migraines, like caffeine. Migraines are such an incredibly complex topic that there are medical specialists for them. Mine can be fairly debilitating, but are rare enough I don’t qualify for most prescriptions. So I definitely understand how trigger management and symptom management are a big deal.
Everyone I know that's discovered that MSG gives them migraines, somehow never get them when they don't know that the food they are eating contains MSG and never have a problem with foods that are naturally high in MSG.
It's possible she believes that those items all trigger her migraines therefore her body gives her a migraine when she believes she's had one of her triggers.
A big tell would be her getting a migraine and blaming it on "hidden MSG" in a food item that doesn't have it.
Or her not getting migraine from foods that have MSG naturally but is never pointed out. Like tomatoes.
It's funny... reading this thread, I'm reminded of a friend of mine who indeed gets migraines from tomatoes. That was actually what she figured out first; the MSG connection came later.
Fancy gains in ROI come from smart seeder/sprayer attachments and combine harvesters (a completely different piece of machinery), not from the tractor that's pulling those equipment. At best there's the ROI from less seed overlap, but plenty of GPS systems integrate well into any tractor and the gains are really marginal. I don't think tractor electronics are as important as they're hyped up to be.
The market for used tractors went through the roof years ago--20 to 40 year old tractors with tens of thousands of miles on them sell for not so far from new prices because farmers value being able to fix them without paying $$$
I guess in that case it would be to eat gamma? Assuming you're keeping all three long-term, the gamma particles will be washing over you whether they're inside you or out.
> Despite this promising start, the conservation experiment wasn't to last, after a rival juice manufacturer called TicoFruit sued Del Oro, alleging that its competitor had "defiled a national park".
No good deed goes unpunished--wild that the competitor company successfully sued them.
There's actually no guarantee that if the "experiment" were allowed to continue that the results would have been as great. If the biomass accumulated faster than it could be broken down, we might not have seen the same result.
The article says they returned after that long having forgotten about the experiment. I think they would have recognized there were positive results long before that if someone happened to be checking in at say Year 2, 5 or 10. It not like the land was still barren piles of orange peel at Year 14 and then suddenly Yahtzee!
That's not the point, the point is nobody could know for certain at the time of decision making, so it is revisionism to frame dumping as a legitimate experiment. The outcomes do not justify the action made at the time given a reasonable analysis of ecological risks. The time order in which a rational decision is justifiable matters, unlike whatever the prior commenter was trying to suggest.
Did they forget? Or did they know this would happen before dumping the first peel and it simply wasn't worth the money it would take to prove it in the public record?
Because what I bet happened is that off the public record who knew their stuff said "this will happen" and then the government rep said "you need to pay some sort of 3rd party with a government license to weigh in on such matters an obscene amount of money to produce a report that says that on the public record" and it was a nonstarter so the project just died and now 16yr later here we are.
From TFA it sounds like they had no idea, given how often they repeat how surprised they were at the outcome. So it sounds like an uncontrolled experiment, let's dump thousands of tons of food waste here and hope for the best.
Also, it's a sample size of one. There could be 20 other non-published stories where something similar was tried and it turned the place into a toxic wasteland. It's a great success story but I can see why people would be nervous with a food company dumping its waste next to a national park.
I suspect the people with a million orange peels to dump are also the people who are experts in exactly how the various parts of an orange degrade with time and that when the plan was concocted they did so knowing it would likely work but they didn't write it down and have since left. Basically the same as legacy code. You see this all the time in the physical world. "why did those morons choose X for Y". Well, 20yr ago the product served Z and at the time that industry cleaned their factories with some other chemical than what they use now and therefor X was the right choice.
People who know their industrial project will F-off and create a dump are the ones who go through the process, pay for the bullshit surveys and studies, get the permits and whatnot and document the whole thing fastidiously. Because those are the things you do to ensure that you are not the bag holder at the end of it all.
I came here to say this, because this whole anecdote mildly infuriates me.
I don't necessarily blame TicoFruit for their actions. They might have some legitimate concerns about fairness, since their competitor is now able to dispose of peels much more economically.
But for the courts to stupidly go along with the injunction is what disappoints me. A much better result for everyone in Costa Rica would be if both manufacturers were allowed to dump at no cost.
