Top
Best
New

Posted by carlos-menezes 4 hours ago

Why some people mow a lawn better than others(pudding.cool)
137 points | 117 commentspage 4
tegiddrone 2 hours ago|
it's Q*bert!
m3kw9 2 hours ago||
It makes like 30 turns as the "best", but if the program ever used a mower, it would want to minimize turns.
quickthrowman 2 hours ago||
Probably the same reason some food delivery people place my bag next to the door instead of in front of the outward opening door where it will tip over, unsure what that reason is but I’d like to know.
whalesalad 2 hours ago||
The optimum path does not take into account row striping :)
firebot 2 hours ago||
100 percent first try. Too easy.
dbg31415 2 hours ago||
I hate this game.

Mowing a lawn is about creating straight even lines not optimal routes.

robocat 1 hour ago|
I don't mow, winning is by not playing the lawn status game.
PunchyHamster 2 hours ago||
the article kinda ignores that the direction of mowing matters, optimal path would look shit
CrzyLngPwd 3 hours ago||
Dig that lawn out and start growing food, ffs.
stronglikedan 3 hours ago||
Why? My dogs and I get much more enjoyment out of a lawn than we would a garden. I can buy food, but space to play fetch is a premium.
doubled112 3 hours ago|||
I only have a front lawn (townhouse) and I'm not allowed to plant whatever I want in it.

If somebody reports it, the city can and will come tear it out and charge me for the work.

"Ownership" is a funny thing.

CrzyLngPwd 1 hour ago||
I can only fell 10% of my trees per year even though I have a felling licence...and why do I need a licence?!
haunter 2 hours ago|||
Or just eat the grass?
win311fwg 2 hours ago|||
Grass is food. If you don't have animals out there grazing it, that's where you've gone wrong.
tekla 2 hours ago||
You first.
CrzyLngPwd 1 hour ago||
I have 45 acres of grass and woodland (some is growing food), not a lawn in sight lol.
zahlman 3 hours ago|
> You’ve probably done something like mow a lawn or vacuum a rug hundreds of times without thinking much about it. Some part of your brain works out a route that’s usually good enough to get the job done. People are actually pretty good at this, and better than you’d guess for a problem that is hard for computers. We wanted to see it for ourselves, so we built a lawn and asked people to mow it.

Is there supposed to be more content than this?

... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

Dylan16807 3 hours ago|
> ... If JavaScript is required to view more content than this, why?

By "asked people to mow it" they're talking about the visitors to the site. It's interactive.

It's somewhat a mistake not to have "skip to results" in the actual html. On the other hand, it makes sense they want to force people to see the landing page first. And unless they want to add a whole rendered fallback the results page isn't going to be super functional without javascript.

zahlman 3 hours ago||
Without JavaScript, there is literally no page text beyond that point until the footer. Thee is no indication that there would be any interactive content. There is also no discussion of what the interactive content demonstrates after it. There are no "results" to which a "skip to results" could skip.
Dylan16807 2 hours ago|||
Yeah I know. But "literally no page text" is only missing a couple words. The correct version is super short.

The noscript version needs a button and a big box with an X. And even then the button would only be half-functional so I understand skipping it. It mostly just needs a "missing content" warning.

frou_dh 2 hours ago|||
We get it, you're really proud that you choose to disable JavaScript, and need to let everyone know about it