Even though the possibility of snow is forecast for this morning, we are now in the part of the year when mowing becomes a major task. If you throw in the orchards we are mowing about an acre.
I seriously considered purchasing a lawn tractor or zero-turn this year but decided to keep using the push-mower until some body-part gives out. You know what they say, use it or lose it. Fortunately, Mrs ERJ is extremely fit and looks like she will be good for decades to come.
It gives me great satisfaction when I can save money and keep Mrs ERJ healthy!
One advantage of mowing in cold weather is we are less likely to pick up ticks. As recently as ten years ago ticks were uncommon but now they are a frequent occurrence. A million years ago I read an article by a vet in Idaho who suggested that the traditional, northern-European "small holding" was a reasonable facsimile of a closed ecosystem and she suggested that house cats are an integral component of the ecosystem.
I am not a "cat person" but if feeding a couple of barn cats is what it takes to knock back the rodent population then I would consider it. Rodents and other small mammals are one of the critical links in the tick's life-cycle.
It irks me to see un-testable hypotheses presented as "Science".
I stumbled across a whiny screed struggling to present the LGBT population as "economically terrorized". It presented a host of "statistics" supporting that contention. Those statistics involved household income which glosses over the fact that heterosexuals are far more likely to form two-adult (and potentially two income) households than LGBTs. Three times more heterosexuals, as a percentage of the base population, are in two-adult households than are LGBTs. Furthermore, heterosexuals are between two-and-seven times more likely to have children under age eighteen in that household. As much as I love children, I must admit that they reduce discretionary income.
Then it went on to moan about LGBT people being forced to self-segregating into certain professions. The "interesting" premise given for why they chose certain professions was "because LGBT people are better at reading social situations"
The author claimed that the need to "stay in the closet" forces LGBT people to become very skilled at making instant decisions about who to trust yada, yada, yada.
It would be interesting to see if LGBT people are swindled by con-men less often than heterosexuals. It would be interesting to see if LGBT interviewers really are more gifted at catching people telling lies. There is undoubtedly some body of data out there that documents some reasonable "test" of that hypothesis but I have not stubbed my toe on it. Yet.
My gut feel is that this self-professed ability to see into another person's head and divine their motives, intentions and 'quality' is usually a manifestation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Incidentally, the professions where LGBT people are over-represented are Social Workers, Psychologists, Professors, Politicians and Human Resources. Another cluster of jobs involve those with high degrees of autonomy like truck driving.
An alternate hypothesis is that LGBT people are drawn to professions where they can influence other people's lives.