Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Photon

1
Quote
Quote
We argue that limb bud cells that would normally form the digit II condensation proliferate toward a more anterior direction, into the space made physically available by the loss of digit I. This causes the presumptive digit II to leave the Shh activity zone. At the same time its cells do not express hoxD12 (and other posterior digit markers) any more, and therefore its transcriptome becomes characteristic of digit I. Its phalangeal number is reduced--whether due to weaker anterior FGF8 signaling, caused by lower Shh levels that would otherwise stabilize the expression, or because of different hox and downstream gene expression

The passage above and especially the loss of digit I may be just the ticket to explain the transition from pterosaur digits to a creature like Scansoriopteryx. Along with the known concentration of Socs2 to shorten and reduce the pterosaur digit IV (which continues as digit IV).
This hypothesized transition (from pterosaur digits to a creature like Scansoriopteryx) is consistent with all the known evidence. It is not contrary to any known evidence.

The reference from Faid employs an analogy with (lucky) rabbit`s foot. Can anyone supply any known evidence (other than a rabbit analogy) that contradicts the pterosaur digits to a creature like Scansoriopteryx digits hypothesis? Please include a reference link and copy and paste.
Anyone?


FFS.  Here's a link I think will really help.

http://www.prhc.on.ca/cms/regional-mental-health
2
Faid has actually contributed! He reminded me of James and Pourtless who acknowledge the different interpretations. But others do not. How do the others handle it? Anyone can answer. And if you can include a reference link and copy and paste that would be helpful.

Anyone?
As an interested observer (aka guest) I am very curious why you refuse to answer objections already raised in regards to your pterobird hypothesis.  To me, it looks like you have no clue what you are talking about, and are consciously avoiding discussing the issues in order to maintain a false narrative that there might be support for your idea. Until you counter those objections, your idea seems to be floating in the toilet, stubbornly awaiting its inevitable flushing.

If you want to convince anyone, you must actually actively respond to objections to your ideas, and engage with others.
3
Well, I can say, in many Western provinces (especially in the rural areas and oilfield concerns), the level of vitriol leveled at Justin Trudeau is quite a marvel to behold. Combined with the NDP government in Alberta instituting a carbon levy and the low oil prices and only now recovering employment in the sector, I think it will lead to a Conservative win provincially in the next election, which is sort of terrifying considering who is leader, and also strong Conservative support federally (which is no surprise).  

I expect a Liberal majority/minority as the result next federal election, Trudeau's done a reasonable job internationally, and a passable job domestically, so at least right now there's probably not a huge push for a change. Despite continued Western alienation and even now (again) reemergence of ridiculous Western separation mumblings, I don't see the Conservatives mounting too great a challenge next election. Official opposition, for sure.

The leaderless NDP, despite some good policies, will not crack 15% of the vote nationally, unless they find someone to lead with actual charisma and good communication skills.

5
Trump wonders 'why legislators don't seem to listen to him'

Quote
The timing could've been better. Donald Trump hosted a strategy meeting on health care last night with a group of Republican senators - each of whom already agrees with the White House...

 "Trump has privately wondered why legislators don't seem to listen to him, and the blow from Moran and Lee illustrated the limits of the president's capacity to master the art of the Washington deal."...

Given a chance to prove just how adept he was as a world-class negotiator and deal-maker, the Republican flunked the test spectaculalry. What emerged was a picture of a president who didn't understand the issue, didn't care to do his homework, showed no interest in policy or substantive details, wouldn't help sell his preferred plan to the public, and couldn't engage in meaningful negotiations because he simply didn't know what he was talking about. 

And, of course...

Trump Now Wants Republicans to Let Obamacare Fail on Its Own

Quote
"But the vote would have been, if you look at it, 48-4," he said. "That's a pretty impressive vote by any standard."

No, o orange moron, it's an abject failure by any standard. Especially the one standard you care about; winning.

Trump's retreat into his fantasy world is now complete.

Noticed that his schedule is light to nonexistent lately?


48-4, if you ignore the other 48 no's. Damn he is stupid, and desperate to claim any modicum of success in what has been 6 months of spectacular legislative failure and a marginalization of the U.S. in international politics to a level I did not think possible.

But he STILL has 30-35% popular support. What the actual fuck are people drinking that they don't see this bombastic know-nothing entitled arrogant cunt for what he is?

Dave?
6
Ok I raised the north end of the rig approx 24" and it's tracking better now ... shouldn't catch wind too bad ... anyway winds are heavier in winter. I'll have to beef it up before then because it will have to be raised a lot more.
What, why?

What is the current orientation to the planet of your single axis of rotation?
7
Just one for now.
In that case, change the mount from alt-azimuth to equatorial and with one-axis control the panel will still be perpendicular to the sun's rays and will increase your efficiency.

You can adjust seasonally but aligning it to the north celestial pole will get you most of the way there at your latitude.
How would I do that ... practically?  Can I modify my current mounting and drive system to make it "equatorial"?

What I am doing presently is manually rotating the whole setup about 20 degrees about an axis passing through the center of the earth ... the pivot point being at the south end of my rig ... where the drive wheel is mounted.  So every day after sundown, I manually rotate it about 20 degrees west so it's directly facing the sun at sunrise.  Sometime throughout the day I will move it back 20 degrees east.  I could easily automate this function with my existing motor drive but I wanna hear your design ideas first.  I have other ideas for winter.

Keep in mind that I don't want to hang my solar panels up too high in the wind ... wanna keep as low a profile as possible.
So, the system rotates automatically in altitude up and down but you rotate manually in azimuth following the sun?  Weird. I would think reversing those two would help some.

Regardless, you can easily modify your design to have it rotate about an axis angled to the NCP, and then have it rotate at a constant rate about that axis to follow the diurnal motion of the sun. Just take your current automated axis, whatever it is, and angle it (90-X)º from vertical (due north) where X is your latitude. Then rotate the system through approximately 180º each day at 15º/h east to west on that one axis whereupon it will return to rest at its original position.

The profile of an equatorial mount will be only a few inches above its current profile, depending on the panel size.
My current automated axis is virtually horizontal - level with horizon - with the long side of the solar array aligned with this axis. Raising it to (90 - 39 = 51) seems like it would make for a big sail hanging out there in the wind.

Mount your panel on an axis through its center. Tilt that 51º degrees north with enough elevation to allow the unit to rotate to each horizon east-to-west. How is that a big sail in any way more than your current mount?  Did you not think improving a design might require some reworking of your base and mount?  It's still single-axis FFS, and needs to be elevated approx the distance from the central axis to the edge of the panel. A foot maybe? 16"?
8
Just one for now.
In that case, change the mount from alt-azimuth to equatorial and with one-axis control the panel will still be perpendicular to the sun's rays and will increase your efficiency.

You can adjust seasonally but aligning it to the north celestial pole will get you most of the way there at your latitude.
How would I do that ... practically?  Can I modify my current mounting and drive system to make it "equatorial"?

What I am doing presently is manually rotating the whole setup about 20 degrees about an axis passing through the center of the earth ... the pivot point being at the south end of my rig ... where the drive wheel is mounted.  So every day after sundown, I manually rotate it about 20 degrees west so it's directly facing the sun at sunrise.  Sometime throughout the day I will move it back 20 degrees east.  I could easily automate this function with my existing motor drive but I wanna hear your design ideas first.  I have other ideas for winter.

Keep in mind that I don't want to hang my solar panels up too high in the wind ... wanna keep as low a profile as possible.
So, the system rotates automatically in altitude up and down but you rotate manually in azimuth following the sun?  Weird. I would think reversing those two would help some.

Regardless, you can easily modify your design to have it rotate about an axis angled to the NCP, and then have it rotate at a constant rate about that axis to follow the diurnal motion of the sun. Just take your current automated axis, whatever it is, and angle it (90-X)º from vertical (due north) where X is your latitude. Then rotate the system through approximately 180º each day at 15º/h east to west on that one axis whereupon it will return to rest at its original position.

The profile of an equatorial mount will be only a few inches above its current profile, depending on the panel size.
9
Just one for now.
In that case, change the mount from alt-azimuth to equatorial and with one-axis control the panel will still be perpendicular to the sun's rays and will increase your efficiency.

You can adjust seasonally but aligning it to the north celestial pole will get you most of the way there at your latitude.
10
Solar Tracker Version 1.0  is working very well. Uses the trusty Basic Stamp  Microcontroller for control.



Does it have one-, or two-axis control?
11
Socrates, do you measure your penis in centimetres, rather than inches, so you can brag about the big number? (Hawkinsian to Socratian Pyramid Reduction)

FFS dude, wake up!
12
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jez.b.22545/full
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259253962_Thumbs_down_a_molecular-morphogenetic_approach_to_avian_digit_homology
Quote
Avian forelimb digit homology remains one of the standard themes in comparative biology and EvoDevo research. In order to resolve the apparent contradictions between embryological and paleontological evidence a variety of hypotheses have been presented in recent years. The proposals range from excluding birds from the dinosaur clade, to assignments of homology by different criteria, or even assuming a hexadactyl tetrapod limb ground state. At present two approaches prevail: the frame shift hypothesis [FSH] and the pyramid reduction hypothesis [PRH]. While the former postulates a homeotic shift of digit identities, the latter argues for a gradual bilateral reduction of phalanges and digits.
Thus the change of the phalangeal formula (as in the PRH) is actually caused by the change of the transcriptome (as in the FSH), which in turn is directly caused by the loss of digit I (probably shh and hoxD mediated).


Quote
At present two approaches prevail: the frame shift hypothesis [FSH] and the pyramid reduction hypothesis [PRH].
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(13)00512-5
The 'pyramid reduction hypothesis' assumes II-III-IV identities for neornithine manual digits and postulates the existence of a conservative five-digit pattern with a gradual, bilateral reduction of phalanges and metacarpals in avian evolution [9]. One proposed mechanism postulates that an elevation in peripheral BMPs, signaling factors that modulate cell survival and proliferation [60, 61], drove bilateral medial and lateral digital reduction [9]. This hypothesis is developmentally plausible, and is also consistent with the phalangeal reduction pattern seen in basal birds [9, 23]. However, it predicts that the direct avian ancestor had a five-fingered hand with dominant digits II, III, and IV [9], which is inconsistent with the digital reduction data from basal theropods (e.g., all known basal theropods, including ceratosaurs, have a vestigial digit IV) [5, 62, 63, 64]. In fact, the pyramid reduction hypothesis implies that either birds are not descended from theropod dinosaurs, or that some as yet to be discovered basal theropods were five-fingered with dominant digits II, III, and IV.

According to these authors, people can choose between "either birds are not descended from theropod dinosaurs, or that some as yet to be discovered basal theropods were five-fingered with dominant digits II, III, and IV."

I am actually shocked that anyone actually had the courage to put out such an anti-establishment hypothesis. But since the facts support it they made the courageous move.


In fact, if you simply read what the various authors have to say about the Pyramid Reduction Hypothesis the ONLY criticism of it is that it contradicts the dino to bird theory. Other than that it is seen and documented as impeccable.
Any crackpot idea is impeccable if you ignore all the evidence that shows it to be false.  It's why creationism and flat-earthism still exist.
13
Not all frameshifts are equal. Here are ramifications of a purported frameshift hypothesis in dinosaurs.
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7249/full/nature08124.html
(Xu et al 2009)
Quote
Based on this study, the most parsimonious alignment is for the four digits of ceratosaurs to be I-II-III-IV and the three (and sometimes four) digits of all Tetanurae to be II-III-IV(V). Accepting such a topological shift at the base of Tetanura requires that the positional homology of the three digits of tetanurans is II-III-IV(-V), as suggested by Wagner and Gauthier34. Because the four digits of ceratosaurs are therefore most parsimoniously interpreted as I-II-III-IV, the small lateral metacarpal ossification of Guanlong35, Sinraptor36, and Coelurus represents the re-ossification of metacarpal V after it is lost at the base of Ceratosauria. The poor phylogenetic resolution for basal tetanurans in our study precludes us from hypothesizing whether this re-ossification event occurred once or more than once in the evolution of Theropoda. Likewise, the fourth metacarpal, which is reduced in primitive theropods and bears an unknown number of phalanges in Ceratosauria, re-acquires at least three phalanges in Tetanurans.

This implies the reduction of digit I before the divergence of the Ceratosauria and the
Tetanurae, the appearance of some polleciform features in digit II and the acquisition of a novel phalangeal formula (X-2-3-4-X) early in tetanuran evolution. Both modifications are partially indicated by the manual morphologies of ceratosaurs and more basal theropods. Also, they are indirectly supported by observations in living animals that a digit will display features normally associated with the neighbouring medial digit if the latter fails to chondrify in early development21, that phalangeal counts can vary even within species29, 42 and that secondarily cartilaginous elements can regain their ability to ossify43.

If BDR [Bilateral Digit Reduction] applies to the more inclusive Averostra, as the II-III-IV hypothesis suggests, early stages of tetanuran evolution must have involved loss of the already highly reduced metacarpal I, reduction in the length of metacarpal II, and the reappearance of additional phalanges on metacarpal IV. Both the I-II-III and II-III-IV hypotheses can claim a degree of support from morphological data, but the II-III-IV hypothesis is more parsimonious when developmental data from extant birds are considered.


For those interested in the complexity of a frameshift in dinosaurs. Please note that I am emphasizing a purported frameshift in dinosaurs.
https://www.academia.edu/11078361/Pentadactyl_pattern_of_the_avian_wing_autopodium_and_pyramid_reduction_hypothesis
Quote
On the other hand, the FSH (Wagner andGauthier, '99) suggests inheritance of a dinosaur homeotic digital pattern [DI(2)MII-DII(3)MIII-DIII(4)MIV-DIV(?)MV] in Archaeopteryx, and it also assumes a homeotic mechanism for other variably reduced phenotypes in modern birds. The developmental mechanism for such extensive and precisely expressed transformation of acropodial identities would necessitate some initial starting points. (i) An absolute developmental dissociation of the individualization of metacarpals and their related phalanges. (This is not the case for homeotic changes expressed via primordial bisection and grafting of donor digital primordia into heterotopic host interdigital environments [Dahn and Fallon, 2000].) (ii) Expression of the homeotic transformation of three consecutive digits along the AP. (iii) The assumption that the establishment of homology of the phalanges developed from condensed mesenchyme distal to M-II, M-III, M-IV as structures undoubtedly referrable to phalangeal elements of the D-I, D-II, D-III in the reduced autopodial pattern of modern birds is possible. (iv) As unstated selective advantage for the entire frame-shift, as well as the sudden developmental dissapearance of the mesenchymal population producing phalanges of the original fully functional first digit of theropods during the assumed transformation from a four- to a three-digit tetanuran hand. (v) The assumption that the four phalanges of the third digit can redifferentiate in an area distal to the vestigial theropodan M-IV.
Regarding the insufficiency of known developmental processes in elucidating such a complex mechanism as that suggested by the FSH, we propose the alternative solution (Pyramid Reduction Hypothesis)

Note that this does not rule out a frameshift in an alternative phylogeny. Just that there is "insufficiency of known developmental processes in elucidating such a complex mechanism as that suggested by the FSH" in dinosaurs.
Is archaeopteryx a dinosaur?
14
You guys are a laugh. But not worth arguing.
But you folks have done well in distracting from the Pyramid Reduction Hypothesis.
Does the Pyramid Reduction Hypothesis illustrate the transition from the Hawkinsian Pyramid Inch to the Socratian Pyramid Centimetre?  Was Noah's Ark metric?
15
Sigh.

Simple question, "socrates":

Do we, or do we not, have actual, tangible evidence that a frameshift occured?

You know the answer. Will you share it with us?

Or are you 'loath to go down that road'?
Socrates is at Stage One, pretending he doesn't get it. Its always difficult getting reasoned discussion from people stuck in Stage One.

Socrates, how do you account for the frameshift evidence?  Just pretend it doesn't exist?

Sad.
16
FFS Socrates, learn to read.
17
World: Scientists are challenged in trying to determine the exact relationship between two closely related fish species; depending on the characteristics considered from their fossils it is not clear if the two species belong in sister groups, or cousins, or if one is indeed ancestral to the other.

Socrates: See everybody?!?! I told you they weren't fish!10!!101

World: WTF?
18
  <  clip masturbatory self-quoting  > 
  <  clip masturbatory self-quoting  > 

http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/qt/papers/201403/P020140314389417822583.pdf (2011)
An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae
Xing Xu1,2, Hailu You3 , Kai Du4 & Fenglu Han2
It should be noted that our phylogenetic hypothesis is only weakly supported by the available data. Bremer support and bootstrap values for the recovered coelurosaurian subclades are, in general, low, and a bootstrap value less than 50% and a Bremer support value of 2 are obtained for a monophyletic Deinonychosauria including the Archaeopterygidae (see Supplementary Information). This low support is partly caused by various homoplasies, many of which are functionally significant, that are widely distributed across coelurosaurian phylogeny29.

LOL
19

My point is what would the Brusatte et al data look like if we accepted the alternate interpretation? This is a question that not only has never been answered - the question itself has never even been asked.


This is Hawkins-level tard.  You are essentially claiming there is a vast conspiracy by scientists to dishonestly present observable characteristics, or that professional scientists are incompetent, or like the infamous TARD radioactive dating chart, that even though the current data all seems to conform to an extremely consistent tree of life, what if all the next data falls off the line? 

TARD.
21
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?

Care to join in? How would you change the Brusatte et al coding for the alternate interpretation of the "ascending process of the astragalus"? In other words, that it is a descending pretibial ossification.

The Brusatte et al coding is available from a link here:
http://datadryad.org/resource/doi:10.5061/dryad.84t75
http://datadryad.org/bitstream/handle/10255/dryad.69251/BrusatteetalRevisionDryadFile1.docx?sequence=1

It is even a bit difficult to understand how to go about this. I presume that the Brusatte et al matrix info would have to be changed so that the dinosaurs were coded as "descending process of the astragalus" and the Euparaves coded as descending pretibial ossification. What do folks think?


What? So you don't know which characteristics to code for? You don't already have a plan?  Dude, what are you objecting to then, when it is clear you are guessing or making uninformed assumptions about their coding?

It looks like a content-free bluff.  And it has been called.

If you disagree, let's see your characteristic list, and your code.
22
Quote
http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
233. Manus: pentadactyl (0); digits I, II, III prominent, digits IV and V greatly reduced or absent (1); digits II, III, IV prominent, digits I and V greatly reduced or absent (2); didactyl or with only two well-developed digits (3); reduced to a single digit (4).

What characteristic is comparable to this character in the Brusatte et al study?

This is a pretty significant characteristic. Surely there must be a comparable character in Brusatte et al.

Every time we look into the details, we find some oddity in the standard accepted dino to bird hypothesis. I am now looking at the "ascending process of the astragalus".

http://www.bio.fsu.edu/James/Ornithological%20Monographs%202009.pdf
The shaded area represents the "ascending process of the astragalus," the homology of which is unclear across these taxa; in birds it may not be an ascending process of the astragalus at all, but rather a descending pretibial ossification (see Appendix 3).

How do Brusatte et al handle the uncertainty about that ossification?

This is where people here go very quiet. At least James and Pourtless were honest about the uncertainty of certain characteristics. The established researchers/authors do not acknowledge the uncertainty. And interestingly enough, code the characteristics in ways that support the dino to bird theory. But everybody knows this. I am just pointing it out.

I have now covered specifically the manus and the "ascending process of the astragalus".
Here is what is interesting but a fair amount of work:
James and Pourtless are honest and conservative. They point out the uncertainty of a number of characteristics and run their analyses excluding them and then coding them as "?". They found that other hypotheses were as well founded as the dino to bird theory.
It would be interesting to code them with the alternate interpretation and see the result. That is a fair amount of work.

Then do it. What characteristics will you code for?
23
the make a cloud metaphor roughly translates to this concrete statement: if 10 million people (population of ny) all plant 4 square feet of garden, they will be replacing ~1000 acres of industrial farm. But, because the food is fresh, less is wasted, far less than the ~40% of industrial ag that never makes it to a table. That increases the efficiency of acreage replaced by some. But also the fact is that it it far more productive per sq ft to garden a very small plot than a field because weeding isn't necessary and spacing doesn't need to meet harvester specifications. Also, that acreage replaced uses no chemical pesticides or mechanical inputs. Figure the small planter is many times more productive per sq ft than an industrial field but even if only two times and the other efficiencies are factored in, window boxes in the US alone could replace a million acres or so of industrial ag. Factor in urban and small sustainable farms that supplement their incomes with classes and events and donations and there's the infrastructure to expand even more. And that's all without even a single garden. If people with yards plant even small gardens, the effects not only compound but create a feedback loop that perpetuates the value of fresh food and connection to the soil. If you try to replace the whole system, you will fail because it is far more than where you live and what you grow. But if you insert that value into the existing system, real change can happen.
OK thanks for explaining your cloud metaphor.  I obviously didn't get it at first.  I do agree that for people who like to eat lettuce and spinach and similar low calorie, high cost, land hogging crops, it would be better for them to grow these items in window boxes and yards, etc. 

I myself am not focused on these types of crops because I view them as unnecessary for good human nutrition.  I could live my whole life and never eat lettuce and be just fine.  My focus is on what I call "staple foods" which have a high calorie content and a high density of essential nutrients.  The most important foods to me are milk, meat, eggs, potatoes and grains.  Yes I like tomatoes and tomato products like spaghetti sauce and yes I like watermelon and so forth ... but these are not "essential foods" ... they are just "nice to have."

So when I see all these people getting excited about converting their lawns to gardens, I kind of chuckle because while they no doubt do have an impact on "reducing commercial lettuce production," they are hardly doing anything at all for "actually feeding people."

If you want to save the world from industrial agriculture, it seems like it would be important to save it from, you know, industrial agriculture.
Yes, but most industrial agriculture is involved in producing what I call staple foods - grains, meat, milk, eggs, potatoes. 

So my approach is to develop sustainable models which produce these types of foods.
There are already lots of sustainable models producing those foods. They just cost a lot more than industrial agriculture. And always will because costs aren't externalized.
OK.  Now I understand what you're talking about.  A couple thoughts ...

1) "already lots of sustainable models" - I'm not aware of "lots" of models - I'm aware of 100% grass based rotational grazing for the production of meat and milk and I'm aware of Salatin's models for egg production and I'm aware of some research in the area of perennial grain production and I know how to raise potatoes and tomatoes sustainably with no external inputs ... and I know about Mark Shepard's ideas to substitute nuts for annual grains ... what other models do you have in mind?

2) "cost a lot more" - true if we are measuring in $$.  And that's what we have to fix in our thinking.  $$ and the $$ system are killing us and our planet.  As the Scripture says, "the love of money is the root of all [kinds of] evil."  I could buy 100% grass fed milk instead of produce it myself and I could get it for about $15 a gallon and eliminate the need to milk goats every day - perhaps an hour of work each day.  And you're right that this would be "cheaper" for me as long as I can earn (net) more than $15 per hour at my town job.  And it's also true that as more 100% grass based dairies enter the market, the price would come down.  But there's something else here and I think it hinges on your definition of "cost" and "wealth" and so on.  I feel that I am much richer because of my dairy goats than I would be without them.  They are a daily source of entertainment for me and my daughter - for example, yesterday we let the baby goats out of the pen and let them play - it was like having our own private circus!!  When I milk they climb on me and nuzzle me and lay ("lie" for grammar nazis) in my lap like a cat or dog.  They are just so fun!  A true source of (real) wealth.


Goat baby cuddles can save the world.  Just think how Trump's abysmal environmental policies, disregard for the poor or the sick, rampant sexism, and unparalled raging narcissism would be mitigated if only he'd allow himself the (true) wealth of interacting with baby goats. 

I'm only joking a little bit. I think it might actually do some good here.  It certainly couldn't hurt.
24
As long as clan mothers do a good share of the cooking, are amenable between the sheets, and definitely don't aspire to the uppitiness of an advanced degree in lieu of raising children, can't we let them seem to be in charge of the land? Bless their hearts.
25
I read yours. And I read Testy's. Testy's made sense. Yours did not.  Sorry.

#sorrynotsorry

Has anyone ever told you your incomplete sentences are a tell?