Posts by bluetinker54

I'm looking to pick up some kind of mini or micro laptop, ideally with a screen size under 12 inches. I've been eyeing the Acer mini box or the mini box X lately.

https://store.acer.com/products/minibook

https://www.acer.com/product/items/...inibook-X.html

The laptop definitely needs to run macOS and have USB ports available.

Does anyone here actually have any hands-on experience with these tiny little things?

Hey everyone,
I’ve got this older laptop—it's pushing nearly 10 years old 😬—so it’s definitely feeling a bit sluggish, but it still gets the job done I guess.
Anyway, I installed some software to access my Login.gov account and everything was working fine for a while, until a couple of days ago when I suddenly got hit with an error saying my JAVA installation is no longer working.
I tried running an update, but that didn't really go anywhere. So, I decided to just uninstall Java entirely and try a clean install, but now the installer keeps rejecting me; every time I try to run it, a window pops up saying "download failed."
Does anyone have any advice on what I should do here?

Look, I’m just trying to explain that, generally speaking, certain regions of the country are going to be worse off while others might actually hold up better.
It really doesn't matter whether you're out there sowing wheat or planting plum orchards.

Of course, I can't say for certain if anyone would actually pack up and move somewhere else, but honestly, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest people would relocate solely based on agricultural conditions.

And yeah, I absolutely agree with you there—both the environmental conditions and the economic landscape are shifting, so we definitely need to start looking for new solutions.

Wait, so you're telling me someone living out near Topusk shouldn't bother with farming just because there's some unused acreage sitting between Našice and Đakovo?

I mean, sure, from a purely economic standpoint, I guess you'd want to focus all your best resources on the most productive spots first. But at the end of the day, people live where they live, not necessarily where some lawmaker thinks they ought to be settled.

The whole point of subsidies shouldn't really be about handing out rewards. It should be more about leveling the playing field, I guess. It’s about making sure that someone dealing with tougher natural conditions and lower yields gets at least some kind of compensation for that disadvantage.
On poor quality land, everything just struggles to grow. I’m not suggesting we should go around forcing wheat production in the middle of the mountains or hilly terrain, but any kind of farming there is inherently harder, more expensive, and the soil is just less productive. I hope that makes sense to you.

Where on earth did I mention irrigation in the middle of the day? Water pulled from 65 feet deep stays cold, even at night.
I still maintain my stance that if you want to do serious irrigation, you need serious infrastructure. Sure, you can maybe use a makeshift well to water a small plot of 10,000 square feet or maybe 50,000 square feet and turn a little profit, but that is absolutely NOT how you manage large-scale operations.

On top of that, you’re going to need reservoirs wherever it's feasible.
To wrap this up, let's look at a little bit of math.
The flat plains cover roughly 170,000 acres of arable land. The summer flow through the Zrmanja river is around 1,400 cubic feet per second or perhaps a bit less.
Vegetables require at least 30 liters of water daily. For one acre, that translates to at least 30 cubic meters. So, for all 170,000 acres—if we were actually trying to grow vegetables across the board—we would need
2,100,000 cubic meters of water every single day. Meanwhile, the total discharge through the Zrmanja into the sea is about 3,456,000 cubic meters. This means we could potentially use about 60% of the Zrmanja's flow for irrigation, but we'd also risk triggering an ecological catastrophe by diverting that much water.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't irrigate; it just means we have to build a system that is actually sustainable.

stormyangler12 As I was saying:
I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I honestly can't help but feel like most of those government subsidies just end up being swallowed by the massive corporations. It seems like whenever there’s a new round of stimulus or tax breaks being handed out, the big players—the ones who probably don't even need the extra cushion—are the first ones in line to grab it all. I guess it’s just how the system is set up, but it feels like the smaller businesses, the actual backbone of the economy, are left fighting over the crumbs while the giants get a free pass. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it certainly looks that way from where I'm sitting. I guess it really comes down to how you define "large" in this context, doesn't it? It’s one of those terms that feels pretty straightforward until you actually sit down and try to pin it down, but I suspect everyone is looking at a different metric. Maybe we should probably establish what we mean by "big" before we get too far into this, because without a clear definition, the whole argument kind of loses its footing.

I guess the total amount earmarked for those subsidies is sitting somewhere around $460 million.
I guess if you look at the numbers, exactly 1,063 of the largest recipients—those pulling in more than $500,000—have received their payments in full. $558987860

If you actually sit down and crunch the numbers—considering there were exactly 103,194 recipients in total—it turns out that... I guess if you look at the numbers, it’s pretty wild to see that a tiny fraction—about 9.7% of the largest recipients—ended up walking away with roughly 50% of the total. It just seems like such a massive concentration of resources in so few hands, though I suppose that's just how these things tend to play out in the US. ...out of the total amount.

I suppose you could make the exact same argument when it comes to their specific share of total production.
Since there isn't exactly a clear-cut definition of what qualifies as "large-scale" or any specific, granular data on production numbers for individual companies, it’s basically impossible to make an exact, definitive statement about the market share. That said, I guess we can look at one illustration to get a sense of the scale: the biggest player in the American agricultural sector produces roughly 8% of the milk and about 20% of the pork.

That’s exactly the point right there—before we can even begin to move forward, I guess we really need to figure out how we're actually going to define who counts as a "major" player and who just falls into that "minor" category. It seems like a pretty fundamental step we're skipping over, but without some kind of clear distinction between the big fish and the small fry, the whole discussion feels a bit aimless, don't you think?
I guess if you’re looking at someone managing maybe 12 acres, then that guy running 250 acres probably seems like some massive industry player to them. But honestly, even that 250-acre operation is practically nothing once you start comparing them to the heavy hitters out there managing 2,500 acres or more. It's all relative, I suppose.
On the other hand, over on the Mediterranean Coast lately, you’ve got these guys who managed to snag long-term concessions for permanent crops, and now they’re just sitting pretty, reaping in those massive government subsidies on 50 to 100 hectares. It feels like a setup, honestly.

I guess there isn't much to say here, really. It feels like we're just circling the same drain over and over again without actually getting anywhere, which is pretty frustrating if you ask me. Maybe I’m being too cynical, or maybe I’m just seeing things for what they truly are, but it seems like everyone is just talking to hear themselves speak rather than actually addressing the core of the issue. It’s a bit exhausting, honestly. I suppose we could try looking at it from another angle, but I haven't seen anyone offer anything substantial enough to make that worth the effort yet.

rowdypilot19 Asks: Whether you’re pulling in 3 tons or 10 tons per acre, the subsidies stay exactly the same. Honestly, if you ask me, that’s just plain stupidity.

Look, you have to understand that this isn't some kind of stupidity. It’s actually pretty straightforward when you think about it, because not everyone is working with the same natural conditions. I mean, if you take two farmers using the exact same agricultural techniques, Matt from the Midwest might pull in maybe 8 tons of wheat, while Steve over in a hilly region like Tennessee might struggle to even hit 5 tons. Plus, he’s dealing with all that extra work coming from the hills, too.

I guess if we’re being honest about how these subsidies actually work, the whole system feels a bit backwards. If you really want incentive programs to make any sense at all, the payout per acre should probably scale down as the farm size increases. It just seems logical that a larger operation benefits from economies of scale—they have lower overhead and can run things much more efficiently than someone struggling with a tiny plot. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but right now, the math just doesn't seem to add up for the bigger players who are already running a tight ship.
Honestly, if that happened, we’d just be looking at an even bigger mess of total chaos and systemic corruption.

I guess I should probably start by addressing this whole situation, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin without sounding like I'm just venting for the sake of it. It feels like everything is being thrown into a blender lately, and honestly, I find myself questioning if anyone is actually looking at the bigger picture here. Maybe I'm just overthinking things, or maybe I'm the only one noticing how much the landscape is shifting under our feet, but it seems like we're constantly reacting to the latest headline instead of planning for what comes next. It’s frustrating, I suppose, to see such a lack of foresight, especially when you consider how much is actually at stake for us all. I mean, if you really sit down and weigh the implications, it becomes pretty clear that the current trajectory isn't exactly sustainable, though I realize that might be a bit of an exaggeration depending on who you ask. Still, it leaves me feeling rather unsettled about where we'll end up if things don't start heading in a more predictable direction.

slysurfer14 said:The whole damn country used up 7% of the available funds from the agricultural budget, so maybe stop barking at the wrong month...

So, who exactly is to blame for all this? I mean, really, if we're going to sit here and dissect this mess, we have to ask ourselves who is actually responsible. It feels like everyone is pointing fingers, but I guess it’s never that simple, is it? Maybe it's one group, maybe it's another, or perhaps it's just a systemic failure across the board. I don't know. I'm just sitting here wondering who we should actually be holding accountable when everything falls apart like this.

rowdypilot19 said:The most basic setup, probably straight from the Stone Age—just a well.

That’s assuming your well is the only one in the vicinity 3.1 miles. But then again, there are areas where you won't find water at all, or maybe it's sitting fifty meters down. And even if you hit it, the water is usually way too cold, so you end up needing these massive surface tanks just so they can soak up some sun during the day to reach a usable temperature.

Real irrigation isn't really possible without massive infrastructure projects and serious, large-scale systems. Primarily, it's an issue of ecology.
If everyone starts setting up their own little DIY micro-systems just to suit their immediate needs, we’re going to run into an ecological disaster long before anyone sees any actual profit.

Andrew Booth29 said:Take a look at a massive operation like Belj—they pull in roughly $1.6 billion in revenue, yet they only grab about $90 million in subsidies. That means those government payouts only account for maybe 6% of their total income. Compare that to your average small family farm here in the States, where subsidies can make up a staggering 30% of their entire revenue: Meanwhile, the grain yields over at Belj are sitting at 50% above the national average.

If you head over to , you can actually find the full list of subsidy recipients. Now, if Belj controls somewhere around 10% of the agricultural production in the country, they’re only pulling in about 1.5% of the total subsidy pool. You can always cross-reference this through the IRS to track down specific companies and their actual revenues.

There are a few other major players following a similar pattern, but the rest of them...

Fine. But I think you should read that article a bit more carefully.
It points out that livestock producers actually receive a higher percentage of subsidies compared to crop farmers. Which makes sense, I suppose, because they get incentives for both the initial planting and the livestock itself.
Looking at Belje's own data, they manage about 50,000 acres of cropland along with 4,000 head of cattle and 2,000 beef cattle.
That works out to roughly one animal for every 12 acres.
Whereas a dedicated livestock farmer, where ranching is the primary business, might have about one head per 2.5 acres. Or basically three times the density of livestock per unit of land. So, naturally, their subsidy percentage ends up being higher.

As for those folks claiming subsidies make up 50% of their income, those numbers probably need a little "cleaning up." It’s most likely small-scale homesteaders who produce a tiny amount for the market—often just selling right from their front porch—so there’s hardly any paper trail regarding their actual sales volume.

I suppose the big operations will likely walk away with a larger chunk of the total subsidy pool simply because they’re managing so much more acreage. But if you actually break it down by the dollar amount per acre, I guess the smaller guys aren't really getting shortchanged either, since everyone ends up receiving the same rate per acre anyway.

Honestly, you’d be surprised. Back where I grew up, there used to be some incredibly valuable state-owned land. Most of the prime acreage was swallowed up years ago by a state corporation—which, mind you, is private now—while the slightly less choice plots have recently been tied up in long-term concessions. We're talking permanent plantations here.

As for the whole maintenance issue, I couldn't agree more.
People tend to skip out on upkeep because they claim it's just too "expensive." They look at something like needing to swap out 30 quarts of oil all at once and decide it's easier to just let things slide.

dustymarlin10 said:So, is Todorica the only one grabbing subsidies?
At least he actually plants something on the land he's getting paid for, unlike those other 100,000 people who collect checks while nothing grows but weeds.

How many people do I personally know who are out there collecting government subsidies while simultaneously letting ragweed take over their entire property? Let’s try to avoid making sweeping generalizations here, but I have to wonder how common this actually is.

rowdypilot19 said:No, no way... I mean just a good chunk of people, in general.

I mean, how else can you explain why they keep bumping up the total subsidy amounts when production is actually dropping year after year? It just doesn't add up.

Shipbuilding shouldn't be lumped in with tourism investment, period.

Given how profitable and high-earning tourism is, we probably should be investing even more there.

Sure, but the thing is, hardly anyone actually owns that much land.

A colleague mentioned he works 70 hectares, but 80% of that isn't even his.

And honestly, the equipment used by small family farms is often older than the country itself.

I highly doubt someone making those kinds of investments—with average intelligence and market knowledge—isn't earning enough for a decent life.

If the guy I mentioned who barely has 10 hectares of hazelnuts is living, I guess, like an average German or Swiss, then someone with 100 hectares definitely has even more potential. Everything else just depends on what you can do with it.

Yeah, especially when you're looking at those smaller family farms. But honestly, I guess maybe he would have been the smarter one if he’d actually put those subsidies toward consolidating his acreage instead of blowing it all on some overpriced, shiny new John Deere tractor.
You really have to keep in mind that when you're looking at tractors, the actual age of the machine isn't nearly as critical as the total number of operating hours. I mean, if you have a solid, well-built tractor that’s been properly maintained, it can easily clock 10,000 hours without breaking a sweat. Once you hit that mark, you just perform a complete engine overhaul, and honestly, you're basically starting over again.
If someone manages to clock about 1,000 hours a year—which, let’s be honest, is actually quite a bit if you're putting in four hours every single workday—they’ll probably end up destroying the machine within ten to fifteen years. But, I guess if they only run it for maybe 300 hours a year, it could potentially last them forty years. Of course, that’s assuming you factor in all the inevitable breakdowns and regular maintenance required to keep things running.

Besides, any boss with half a brain is going to go out and buy a brand-new John Deere or maybe a top-of-the-line piece of equipment, but they’ll still insist on keeping that ancient, rusted-out relic tucked away in the back of the shed just in case some absolute disaster strikes. It’s honestly ridiculous. You’re right in the middle of a massive job, a warning light pops up on the dashboard of the new machine, and what can you actually do? You basically just call the service department and sit there staring at the floor, wondering where it all went wrong. Until the mechanic shows up, you’re stuck trying to finish the whole damn project with some prehistoric junk from 1975 that probably shouldn't even be running.

wearytrucker22 As I was reading what Paul Gonzalez10 had to say, I couldn't help but feel that...
You people have been living on this land for over a thousand years, yet you can't even manage to pull together 250 acres of solid ground? It really makes you wonder what your ancestors were actually doing with their lives. Honestly, if you don't have at least a few hundred acres to work with, maybe you should just step away from the farming business entirely. It’s just not practical. And don't even get me started on the situation along the Mediterranean Coast, where the government either holds onto almost all the land or leaves nothing for the actual people to use. It's frustrating, I guess.

Here we go again, just whining and complaining like usual.
I guess you could say that back in the old days under America, there was a legal cap on land ownership set at around 25 acres. Even with that limit in place, the actual average per person was probably only sitting somewhere around five or seven acres.
Even if you happen to have the cash sitting there ready to go, it’s not like you can just walk into any neighborhood and buy up land on a whim. It doesn't always work that way.

I guess I should probably start by addressing what was said in that previous post. It seems like we're circling the same drain without actually making any progress on the core issue at hand.

rowdypilot19 said:When you look at the coast, the government really only holds onto whatever they managed to nationalize. 😁

How exactly am I supposed to wrap my head around that? I mean, I guess there might be a way to look at it, but honestly, I’m just not sure where to even begin with a question like that. It feels like there’s so much missing from the equation that any answer I give would probably just be a shot in the dark, though I suppose I could try to piece it together if I really had to.
I can't help but wonder who actually owns all this forest land that’s currently being torched right before our eyes. If I had to guess, most of it probably belongs to the federal government, wouldn't you say?
It doesn't really matter if they aren't easy to work with right now; over the last decade, I guess they've actually become somewhat manageable.

And you’re really out here claiming they're selling stuff at Kroger for 160 😉

Or is it actually four times cheaper than that?

slysurfer14

I was actually thinking about table grapes in $1.25 retail markets—if that's what they're selling, what on earth is their production cost? I mean, where is the profit margin in all this?

Even the price for bell peppers seems suspiciously low. Honestly, I have no idea what they’re paying for labor, but just the cost of refrigerated transport from Spain alone is at least $0.30 per kilo.

Seriously, if you can find me peppers for 50 cents 🙂
, let me know.
If you're asking who benefits from prices being this cheap, it certainly isn't the consumer; it’s definitely not the small local farmer. Someone paying $0.67/kg for peppers isn't even going to bother picking them—they'll just leave them to rot in the field.

I assume you’re keeping an eye on the price trends; almonds usually hover around $110-$40, though you might catch them on sale at big retailers like Walmart for maybe $70-$90. But honestly, those $53 prices are more of a fluke than anything else.
I'm not entirely sure what they're charging at the local farmers' market, but I doubt they're much higher than what you'd find in a grocery store.

Yeah, I suppose honey is a bit of a niche product after all, isn't it? 😉

Regarding all this talk about how agriculture is "collapsing," I was over at Walmart yesterday and saw red bell peppers from Spain priced at $0.67/kg.
I have a question for the economists out there: what on earth is the actual production cost if it makes sense to import them 1243 miles only to sell them at a price 3 to 5 times cheaper than what we grow locally?
Then there’s the Mexican grapes, which were going for $1.25. Since Mexico is a bit closer than Spain, the shipping should be cheaper, but honestly, the price is just too low—it looks more like the kind of price you'd see for wine grapes in September rather than table grapes.

slysurfer14 said:And honestly, that’s exactly why we shouldn't have property taxes, right? Let some countries pay nothing while weeds take over everything—personally, I wouldn't mind if the ragweed grows everywhere (works for me)

To start with, we really should have implemented some kind of fee for unmanaged or neglected land ages ago. If we did, there would probably be fewer wildfires, the mess in the Land Registry might actually get sorted out sooner, and land that’s just becoming a burden to someone would likely pass to a new owner.

slysurfer14 said:Look, obviously we're talking about revenue. How much of that is actually profit is a whole different story...
With Wheat, the profit is tiny, but with other crops it's way higher—something our local farmers just don't seem to get...

The profit might be minimal, but you aren't putting up much capital upfront since you already own the technology and the heavy machinery.
Switching over to an entirely different crop requires specialized knowledge and a whole new set of equipment.

But honestly, tell me how much your friend who's struggling would actually have to invest if they wanted to make a living solely from that. Let's say they decided to go full-time in that specific industry.

wearytrucker22 said:If you don't have the fundamentals down to actually run an agricultural operation, then leave the farmland alone. It's like saying, "I think I'll get into farming," when you don't even own any land to farm.

What do you mean "no land"? Of course there's land—it's leased. You pay for the lease, and that lease cost gets baked right into the overhead calculations.
It's just basic math, really; it works exactly the same way in any other business venture.

rowdypilot19 said:That’s like me saying I have to go into business with a guy selling lemonade on a street corner.

Nothing is mandatory, really. You just have to run the numbers and decide what makes sense for your wallet.

But 70 acres spread over 50 different plots... I honestly don't know how to respond to that without being rude, I guess.

What exactly did I twist?

I laid everything out pretty clearly. If something doesn't make sense, maybe just ask before jumping in with a comment.

I mean, obviously, to do the work, you need the machinery to do it. It takes a real genius to figure that one out, I suppose.

Look, I’m no lawyer, but do you honestly think he can just take ten separate plots of land and somehow merge them into one single parcel while they're under a lease?
I mean, honestly, those 70 parcels are probably just merged into a few larger plots; I highly doubt there are actually 70 individual, disconnected pieces of land scattered around. But even if that's the case, you still have the massive headache of dealing with all the paperwork for 70 different lots...

I mean, at the end of the day, you can't just force a merger if the owner isn't interested in selling. It's pretty much impossible to consolidate things if they aren't willing to part with the property.

Whose land are we even talking about here? It has an owner, right? And does that owner actually want it cultivated in the first place?
I mean, look, about 98% of the Great Plains is just sitting there uncultivated, even though we have tourism practically right under our noses.

rowdypilot19 said:Look, subsidies and pensions aren't inherently bad ideas, but I guess people in America have really turned the whole art of cutting corners into a fine science. 😁

That is just brilliant—so, basically, to drive a nail into a board, you need a hammer, a nail, and a board. Just incredible.

Honestly, I'm stunned.

Of course, they're always ready for a little scheme.

Man, you really have a knack for twisting things around. It isn't exactly the same setup for someone whose main bread and butter is livestock and who might just plant 25 acres of Wheat because the straw is useful for feed or part of a crop rotation. For them, the profit on that wheat is peanuts, but they have their own logic for why they're planting it. Then you have someone farming 2,500 or even 10,000 acres who actually makes their living off that grain and uses a completely different scale of technology.

Paul Gonzalez10 said:Well, Europe was the one that pioneered these subsidies in the first place—so what, is the German or the Frenchman just an idiot? Do you actually know what the original purpose of these incentives was, or where they were first implemented?

I couldn't tell you the exact details, but I know back in the '80s, dairy farmers were already receiving subsidies for milk. Honestly, I don't know the specific reasoning behind it, nor does it really matter who is handing them out.
The real issue is that here, the subsidy system hasn't done much for agriculture in terms of actual progress. It mostly boils down to a complete lack of any coherent agricultural strategy.