In this economy?
There's gotta be at least six figures worth of eggs in this photo
this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
670 points (95.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
7477 readers
2014 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
4 x 3 containing 30 eggs = 360 x 6 layers per pallet = 2160 x 4 pallets = 8640 / 12 per dz = 720 dozen eggs x $5 a dz = $3600. Considering these are brown eggs, they may be selling as free range organic bullshit for like $10 / dz so maybe $7200.
So it's six figures if you include the places after the decimal then ;-)
Or if you sell eggs for $140 / dozen.
And to think I was upset about my eggs costing about $3.50 / dozen with treats included. Oh well, the little raptors are fun.
Nothing makes a joke funnier than using math to poke holes in it lol
Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn't work... but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?
A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn't have to be any more complex than that.
Like Jiminy Cricket said, "Let your conscience be your guide"
That's what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It's rare, but it does happen, and I'm not going to argue with them about it.
If you say you're a woman, then you're a woman, and it shouldn't be any more complex than that.
From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it's really not that hard.
Many people apparently just don't like the answer.
Why do I get the feeling the "answer" you're talking about is just chromosomes
Ther is literally no definition you give that will not exclude any cis women at all.
This is such an insane statement. In biology almost any kind of sexual behavior has been observed including male species who carry the young in their body (sea horses), species that are both male and female, species that change gender during a lifetime, species without gender etc etc. Literally anything goes in the biological world.
Literally anything goes in the biological world.
While true, there are some established standards. And amongst mammals, the standard is always that males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the "safer" jobs, like childcare of gathering.
Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut. The only reason why we argue about this is because we have evolved to a point where we're no longer that reliant on biology - that does not change the fundamentals tho.
Are there exceptions? Absolutely.
Exceptions imply that these roles are not strictly inherent to animal (including human) behavior. If colonizing countries weren't all patriarchal, I'm sure we would've seen many more exceptions.
These exceptions exist for a reason, whether or not they fit your personal worldview.
But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the "safer" jobs, like childcare of gathering.
This is just a bad argument, and has been used to justify all kinds of awful things. why would the fact that humans have always done things a certain way imply that that's a good thing? Is slavery a good thing? rape? colonization? genocide?
Rigid gender roles have only truly served half of the human population. Even so, men have also suffered in other ways because of them. Why shouldn't we work to better everyone's lives, in as many ways as we can manage?
Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut.
This is demonstrably false. Biologists have known as much for... quite a while. Please consider informing yourself before making claims about important topics.
You are just making this up as you go along. I can disprove your theory by the animal living in my house: cats live solitary lives and therefore do not divide tasks between genders. The idea that females primarily take care of children makes no sense since in most species (incl. most mammals) kids grow up pretty quickly. In most animals there is no sharp distinction of tasks between males and females.
cats live solitary lives and therefore do not divide tasks between genders
??? No they're not? Cats do raise their young what the fuck. The female is also the only one that can ensure the kitten survive as she's the one producing the milk which is necessary. Male cats usually don't give a fuck about the kitten and just bring food for the mother.
The only exceptions to this is lions (which is sorta a cat), where females do everything and the males are just lying around.
The idea that females primarily take care of children makes no sense since in most species (incl. most mammals) kids grow up pretty quickly ... In most animals there is no sharp distinction of tasks between males and females
Very cool you think so. Yet it's the case. I don't know how I can prove something that obvious to you. Just pick any common mammal you might find outside and there's a 95% chance that the female animal will take care of the child.
The standard is always X. Are there exceptions? Absolutely.
Then the standard isn't always X lmfao
Are you trying to seem more stupid than you are right now? Is a human with two arms not the standard because there are a small amount of people with more or less? Is a cat with a tail no longer the standard because there are cats without tails?
A standard is a standard if the majority of cases fit it. If 95% of all humans had brown hair, that would be the standard. Period.
Stop coming up with these dumbass arguments.
You didn't say it was the standard, you said it was always the standard. If there are exceptions, then it isn't always the case.
That's female, not woman, but it was a nice try
I know you probably don't want to hear this, but from a biological standpoint, it's the same thing. Different female animals have their "own" names aswell, like Ewe (female sheep), Sow (female Pigs), Hen (female Chicken), Doe (female goat), Mare (female horse) etc. Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones "Woman".
That's not a "biological standpoint" it's a social one. We invented the names for animals. And there's more than one word for female horse because it was useful for us to differentiate foal/yearling/filly/mare, and males get an extra one if they're castrated.
Speaking of inventing names for things: biological sex is not the same concept as gender even though they are very often aligned and used interchangeably. It's just people who don't know enough about anthropology and biology lack the full context to understand that.
foal/yearling/filly/mare
Those are different things tho, mostly seperated by age.
Foals are baby horses (roughly equal to "baby"), yearling are young horses (roughly equal to "kid"), fillys are young female horses (roughly equal to "girl") and mares are adult female horses (roughly equal to "woman").
biological sex is not the same concept as gender
That's why I specifically said "from a biological standpoint". I'm well aware that some people may choose the opposite gender so it differs from the biological sex.
You can't help but say a wrong thing in every single comment
I'm well aware that some people may choose the opposite gender so it differs from the biological sex.
Nobody chooses their gender. That's kind of the whole thing with dysphoria. If a trans person could simply choose to be the gender that matches their sex, they wouldn't have dysphoria
"From a biological standpoint" you're still wrong because the real world isn't simple. There's more chromosome options than XX/XY. There's various disorders that can cause people to develop in ways contrary to their sex chromosomes. There's chimeras, intersex, people born missing parts of their body.
"Biological sex" is a convenient simplification like "there are three phases of matter" or the concept of tidy electron orbitals.
There’s various **disorders **that can cause
Exactly. And that's what they are. Disorders. That doesn't mean it breaks the status quo. If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don't go around saying "humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!". No, we still say that humans are born with two arms.
Trying to extend definitions to include every possible whim of nature is completely futile.
If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don't go around saying "humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!".
What? Yes we do. Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair, and we definitely say that humans can be born with red hair. If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms, we would absolutely say that some humans are born with three arms. We certainly couldn't use having two arms in our definition of human
Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair
Which is significantly more than people having a third arm.
If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms
Yes, but they're not. That's the entire point.
I get the sense that you don't have nearly as firm a grasp on language and communication as you think you do. You explicitly made reference to a hypothetical situation in which 100 people are born with two arms and 1 person is born with three, and then made a statement about how we would act in that hypothetical situation. If your entire point was that a shockingly small fraction of the population is born with three arms, you should not have used a nearly 1% proportion in your hypothetical.
But also, the proportion of the population doesn't even matter. If some humans are born with three arms, then you have to acknowledge that humans can be born with three arms. You can say that humans are typically born with two arms, but trying to define human as something that's born with two arms would be factually incorrect.
view more: next ›