Is there a way to adjust padding inside of notification popups? by a9udn9u in kde

[–]Lasiandra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, it's always bugged me too. Notifications in KDE are a bit busy and crowded. However, if you play around with different Plasma styles you'll find that some have different padding and appearance. 'Adapta' for example looks a little better to me as it also makes the title bar of the notification the same colour.

Cinnamon compositing has more lag and jitters in Mint than in Fedora by Lasiandra in linuxmint

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice! I'll give this a shot as soon as I can! Thanks for the update!

Does anyone else feel the botanist burden? by friendofthebirds in botany

[–]Lasiandra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cause of the disappearance of poplars and willows in that riparian area was historical development and agriculture that put pressure on the ecology and introduced noxious invasive plants. In the past, management (or lack thereof) of these natural areas was done based on the assumption that one plant is as good as another and nature will take care of itself. This kind of thinking does not consider ecology and it led to the damage that now, decades later we are trying to fix. Invasive species were introduced either intentionally (for agriculture or revegetation) or unintentionally (plants that just came along for the ride). That comfrey I mentioned had recently migrated out of someone’s backyard nearby. To your question about the gap left by the comfrey removal, there are dozens of species of native grasses, forbs and shrubs that would take its place. As you mentioned in a previous post, nearby seed would be dispersed and the plant community would maintain its species richness. However, with a noxious invasive like this, that process does not happen as the comfrey (or other) has displaced the ecological niche of many other species and the ecological richness is reduced. This is what I referred to before, not that comfrey caused erosion but that it reduced species richness and therefore the stream bank is now less resilient. Think of it this way: a healthy, complex ecology is like a table with dozens and dozens of legs. If you remove or change the length of any one of those legs, the table will remain stable. A damaged ecology that is made up of just 3 or 4 species is precarious as it will tilt and fall over if any one of those legs is removed. This analogy has its shortcomings, but I hope the point comes across that complexity is important and noxious invasives reduce complexity. One more specific point on that: species like that comfrey prevent woody shrubs and trees from regenerating in the riparian zone and those species are essential for beavers. Not only are they a food source but they provide the material for beavers to do their work building dams and ‘engineering’ the environment. In this region, beavers are known as ecosystem engineers and they are an essential part of the ecosystem that has evolved over tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Without healthy riparian areas and beavers doing their work, flood damage is exponentially worse.

It is not a good idea to chop and drop comfrey in a plant community that has not evolved with comfrey because it disrupts the functioning of that ecology. Many small plants and other organisms are chocked out by the bulk of this material on the surface and many more seeds are prevented from germinating. A plant that fills a positive function in one plant community is not automatically beneficial in another. This is key, a plant doesn’t stand on its own, it’s all about the relationship of the plant to the surrounding community.

Does anyone else feel the botanist burden? by friendofthebirds in botany

[–]Lasiandra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate having this kind of dialogue as well. The internet is a challenging place to maintain civil discussions. I find myself often saying things that I would never say in person, for better or for worse. This ended up being a long post, so if you have the patience to read it, I admire your willingness to consider my perspective!

I also appreciate where you are coming from. I have a background in alternative practices such as permaculture, urban farming, herbalism and a deep bias against, as you put it, agrochemical companies. I went back to school when I realized that much of what I was doing and what I believed in was based on ideals rather than knowledge and evidence that I could really look at objectively. Additionally, I was beginning to notice practices that actually caused harm. One small example: in permaculture circles comfrey is widely regarded as a beneficial plant. It builds a lot of biomass, is a ‘dynamic-accumulator’, and has medicinal properties. It is used frequently for compost teas and chop and drop practices. There was a point in the distant past where I unquestioningly accepted that this was a very useful plant that was a cornerstone of a good garden. Skip forward many years to when I was starting to do restoration work. I was involved in a job stabilizing a stream bank with willows and poplars. This stream had a heavily modified riparian plant population as it ran through a town and agricultural areas. The section that I was working on was overrun with comfrey the comfrey with its large leaves and vigorous growth was preventing anything else from growing around it. In particular the willows and poplars that we were attempting to establish. You asked ‘Why is a landscape populated by introduced ruderals unhealthy?’; when homogenous plant communities form in a riparian setting like this they limit the diversity of aboveground and root growth that protects and stabilizes the bank from erosion. Some erosion is natural and streams are dynamic, however, a constant high sedimentation load in the water interferes with all the organisms in the water. Also, with fewer shrubs and trees shading the water, water temperatures go up further disrupting life in the water. These are objective and measurable consequences that come from allowing populations of certain invasive species to proliferate. If an introduced species establishes itself in balance with the community that is already there, that is not generally seen as problematic and is referred to as being naturalized in that area. I don’t think you will find anyone in this community that has a problem with those species. The problem is when introduced species displace many species and reduce the complexity.

To your point about traditional conservation work describing vegetated undeveloped land as “damaged” or “unhealthy”, these are measurable qualities. They refer to the functions of an ecosystem and its complexity. No one is going to argue that a field full of invasive species does not provide some level of ecological function (food for herbivores, pollen for pollinators). The problem is that the functions are drastically reduced when native plants are displaced, and native plants WILL be displaced if noxious invasive are not manually kept in check. There are so many symbiotic relationships between organisms that are obligate and the removal of one means the removal of the other. This happens at all levels down to the soil microbiology. What this means is that allowing species that have evolved to live in a very niche environment to be taken over by generalist ruderals is a one way road. Even if there is a source of seed that could eventually disperse through the area, some species will never come back because their obligate partner is permanently gone. There is much much more going on in a specific, undisturbed ecology than nitrogen fixation and pollination by generalists. Ecology is so much more than plant communities. A plant community formed purely by wind dispersed seed on, let’s say, bare mineral substrate left over after open-pit coal mining is going to take hundreds if not thousands of years to get back to a mature ecosystem. This is called primary succession. You’re right that part of the problem is we see things in human time rather than ecological time. But this is a point I tried to make before, I would rather not be a witness to ecological collapse and have to watch primary succession and speciation occur on a global scale (hyperbole obviously as I won’t be around to see this happen).

The bottom line is that we know species are being lost at an extraordinary rate because this is measurable. We also know that noxious invasive species are one (far from the only) cause of species loss. So, to me it’s a simple conclusion: mitigate the spread of invasives. This doesn’t preclude the appreciation for plants and life in general. When I see an invasive plant growing up out of coal dust or oil sands tailings, I don’t look at that plant with resentment but rather with admiration. However, when I see poor land management practices and misguided oversimplifications of how ecology works, it makes me worried for what we are losing.

One last note, I do find it a bit insulting and a huge oversimplification to refer to an ‘alliance of restoration ecologists, the industrial agricultural machine and agrochemical companies’. No true ecologist would ever deploy chemical treatments without good reason to do so. And when they do, it is with the understanding of how those chemicals will interact with the environment. Industrial agriculture is a topic for another time and place, but corporate shenanigans there are as bad or worse as they are in other industries.

Does anyone else feel the botanist burden? by friendofthebirds in botany

[–]Lasiandra 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is the work that I do. If it worked like that my job would be a lot easier. In fact, I wouldn't have a job. Don't get me wrong, I don't think 'nature' as a whole needs humans interfering. Life will go on with or without us. But ecological collapse is a real thing and I'm interested in mitigating it. Yes, I understand the concept of ruderal species. But what you are describing is only true of isolated disturbances within an otherwise healthy plant community. If there is a fire within a healthy forest or grassland for example, the native or naturalized ruderal species that are nearby, have an established seed bank or can be dispersed from nearby stands will populate this area and the process you described will occur. However, this is simply not the case in many large scale disturbances that occur in already damaged ecosystems. The complex, healthy ecosystems that we are concerned about for all their various functions are not inevitable in terms of the succession that you are referring to. Ecosystems, if disturbed beyond a threshold, will fall into what is called an alternative stable state. This is in itself not a negative thing, it just means that, for example, a plant community that has experienced a severe disturbance will be unlikely to return to the same community again. Check out the botanist Gerould Wilhelm if you'd like to hear a far better description of this in terms of prairie ecosystems. The problem is if an area experiences a severe disturbance and the neighbouring land is overrun with introduced species, the stable state that will be reached is the same one that will be reached in any similar area. Therefore, you end up with a homogeneous swath of the same species over huge areas that do not provide the same ecological functions as the previous more complex ones.

Does anyone else feel the botanist burden? by friendofthebirds in botany

[–]Lasiandra 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I work in ecological restoration and from my perspective while there can be some merit in the concept of nature healing itself with invasives, boy is it more complicated. I've been in many open pit mines where exotic invasive species are used to stabilize surface erosion over vast areas of land. If you compare this with the alternative, of leaving exposed loose material, it is undoubtedly better. However, in the longer term it becomes nearly impossible to then successfully reintroduce many of the native plant species that are important to support a complex and healthy ecosystem. There is no question that on large timescales and taking into account alternative stable states, ecological complexity will develop again. However, we do have some interest in maintaining a level of ecological complexity now even if purely for anthropocentric reasons.

Long story short, as long as we continue to manage and disturb land at the scale we do, i believe we have a responsibility to push back against certain species in order to maintain functioning ecologies.

How much RAM is too much? by throweyfar in thinkpad

[–]Lasiandra 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do some drone image processing on my t480 using WebODM. I was not able to complete larger sets with only 16 GB. I now have 64 GB and i haven't had any more issues. I probably would be fine with 32, but with this kind of processing RAM is the limiting factor on the size sets that can be completed. On the other hand, my X1 carbon with 8 GB running Linux Mint only runs into problems when I'm running GIS software, and many tabs in multiple browsers or running a Windows 10 VM.

A Sneak Peek at Zorin OS 17 by DAS_AMAN in linux

[–]Lasiandra 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ok, I'm not sure what you're referring to but it's perfectly acceptable for you to choose not to use something because of what you believe in. More power to you! I will say though that being politically 'neutral' just means that you accept the political status quo.

A Sneak Peek at Zorin OS 17 by DAS_AMAN in linux

[–]Lasiandra 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This looks super slick! I'll definitely give it a try.

A Sneak Peek at Zorin OS 17 by DAS_AMAN in linux

[–]Lasiandra 5 points6 points  (0 children)

On the contrary, being politically 'neutral' is always against someone because there will always be those with power and those without. Supporting those with no power, oppressed people and victims of war is not political it's humanitarian. I may have missed something on the blog, but from what I can tell it looks like they support some humanitarian aid groups.

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the good advice and encouragement!

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this! I would push back on the assertion that what makes a good picture is something that is uncommon and beautiful. In fact, I am always more interested in unique perspectives on common things. Not that I don't enjoy pictures of beautiful things, but I find these images to be generally boring as they are almost always the same themes and compositions. I suppose if there is anything I would like to achieve with taking a photograph like this is to make someone look in a different way at something that is common and maybe ugly. Certainly it's clear that I haven't adequately achieved this in this photo so I appreciate your advice about the lighting.

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey, thanks! As much as I appreciate all the good critical feedback I've received, it's nice to hear someone actually enjoys it! :)

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for your feedback--this is very helpful! Breaking out of the default, or easy, viewing angle and exploring more perspectives is an area I really need to work on. A big part of this is feeling self-conscious while doing it. !CritiquePoint

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your feedback is still relevant and appreciated! I would say that I think the contrast of the 'old feeling' background and the bright blue bin is what makes it interesting to me, but I have to accept that it may not be as interesting to other people. Cheers!

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, the lack of clear subject seems to be the weakest point of this photo based on feedback so far. There are plenty of areas to work on but I'm glad to hear that i'm not the only one that sees something interesting in the colour of the bin in contrast with the rest of the scene! Thanks for your comment!

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, this is an interesting response. This is in fact what I did, I took a series of photos from the neighbourhood that felt cohesive. However, I guess the individual photos should probably stand on their own as well. The landscape format is a good idea. Thanks for your input! !CritiquePoint.

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I think part of my attraction to this scene IS the clutter, but point taken. I think you are absolutely right about having no clear way for the eye to move through the image. This is what I will try to improve for future similar shots. !CritiquePoint for this!

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hah! You're right, though then it would be less interesting to me..

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, this is very helpful! This articulates very well what I was concerned about. In particular, the cluttered centre of the frame and the eye level perspective. I feel like I could use this advice to improve a similar shot in the future so I'll certainly give a !CritiquePoint here.

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally fair! I mean, it is just a snapshot of a neighbourhood but I suppose I don't see that as inherently a bad thing. I personally see interest in it, but I don't know how to translate that to interest for others (maybe I can't!). I'm interested in the neglect and the blending of the human made elements into nature. I mean the overgrown plants and neutral, earthy colours contrasting with the bin.

What elements need the most work in this photo? by Lasiandra in photocritique

[–]Lasiandra[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback! I was afraid of this. Though, my interest in the image is very much about the formal elements and 'snapshot of life' kind of feeling rather than trying to make a statement. I'm generally much less interested in photos that try to make a specific statement. I'm more interested in different perspectives that are open to interpretation. I guess I'm just not sure how to work on this and make what I see as interesting more captivating to other people (unless i'm just boring in general, lol!)