This whole thread is gold and I was going to post it here (especially the items before the tweet about the "food computer")
But this "food computer" is what happens when you think smart people are smart with everything or that they know everything. They aren't and they don't.
"MIT Built a Theranos for plants" is a headline that's true in a lot of levels (further down in the thread)
(Not to mention all the stuff about reputation laundering)
Are the stories about how awesome places like MIT were in the past wrong, or is it just that these days they're riding on the reputation earned in the 70s?
Neither. MIT was and is awesome. That the Media Lab had a lot of people gifted with PR skills does not detract from the outsized contribution MIT faculty and graduates make in terms of publications, research or economic impact.
Ah, OK. My contact surface with MIT is through a) various old lectures of theirs I watched, and b) the "hot stuff" that I read about (which I guess is mostly from the Media Lab). The former was awesome, the latter not so much.
I'd like to add that most (not 100% that all of it) of the functionality is available for commercial greenhouses, with hydroponics, micro-climate, leds, etc.
We are talking about a massive building that puts amazon warehouse to shame. That's how you make a return on this technology.
Now, most of it is proprietary, expensive, and the control systems are fairly basic, so there is scope for an open source project, for improvement, for openness and usability.
That tweet is snarky, but it's also wrong. Growth chambers have indeed been commercially available for over 50 years, but a "food computer" appears to be a little different, because it also includes the plumbing and reservoirs for growing plants hydroponically.
https://twitter.com/SarahTaber_bww/status/117189568344985600... https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=industrial%20growth%20...