It is not.
> backwards, in my opinion
What would be the forwards way to express the same concept?
Do you not see the cold irony in expecting the cat to poop in a way the robot can handle?
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.
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.
Even if it's not, this
> I wonder if there's something about your cats' diet that renders their excretions too incompatible with what the robots are designed for.
Is strangely funny and backwards, in my opinion