> The same way the gp expressed it, that the robot was bad at dealing with the cats excretions.
That (what the GP/OC expressed) omits the intellectual-curiosity point I was trying to get across: why?
Is there something backwards in my wondering about the reason for the mismatch?
> Do you not see the cold irony in expecting the cat to poop in a way the robot can handle?
That borders on being an uncharitable interpretation of my comment. I certainly have no such expectation (and certainly did not say so), but, as an engineer, especially on HN, I see no coldness nor irony in if the designers of the robot had certain expectations as to what the majority of domestic cat feces would be like.
If I have to somehow manipulate an organic system to create feces in a way that an engineered system expects in order for the engineered system to work properly, then the engineered system expecting the feces doesn't appear to be designed well at all, and I wouldn't use it. Could you imagine if the toilet required you to eat a certain diet?
Now I fear you're just putting words in my mouth, and certainly not responding to the strongest possible reading of my comment.
Regardless, the implication that any domestic animal can have a diet that is not manipulated in the first place, stretches credibility.
> Could you imagine if the toilet required you to eat a certain diet?
Let's use a more accurate analogy, of a toilet that requires I not eat a certain diet, but where the vast majority of other diets, including an overall healthier one, are acceptable.
I don't need to imagine. That's all low-flow toilets and a low-fiber diet.
My intention was never to put words into your mouth but help you understand why I or someone else might read your comment as funny or backwards (since you asked). It seems that is impossible to do so I give up!
It is not.
> backwards, in my opinion
What would be the forwards way to express the same concept?