1594 pts · January 14, 2016
So much this - the time he bought, plus his support for the RAF, set the conditions for Britain to maintain air superiority. Churchill was against all that, but somehow that gets forgotten.
Airborne owls that hit the cat without being noticed (ie the way owls hunt) of a certain size, yes. At that distance, and on the ground? If that cat wanted to, the owl would get eviscerated.
This is both beautiful and heartbreaking
It completely depends on your definition - chronologically, culturally, biologically? But across the board, 50ies tend to perceived as late middle age.I didn’t pull that out of thin air btw, you can punch “middle age” into Wikipedia or google and see the same answer I’ve given.
So most people put the end of middle age around 60-65
End! The end of middle age! Typed too fast
It’s usually not an equal split, so most people put the beginning of middle age around 60-65. Most people would classify him at the end of middle age.
And to preempt this - if by “Germans” you mean “those of Germanic origin” (as “Germans” wasn’t really a thing in 1800), that’d have included England, most of Scandinavia, and most of Central Europe.
While I technically agree with all you said, I’m just not sure if this is helpful in any way past the abstract - is there any nation left on the planet that one could be a member of and considered innocent unless they take up arms against it? Because I genuinely can’t think of one?
Don’t waste your efforts, they are being historically revisionist to support some anti-German sentiment they seem to have. “German” wasn’t really a thing in 1800 - there was a shared cultural and ethnic origin, but by that logic, why stop at Austria, and not include eg the Dutch or the English. At the same time, Austria in 1800 was a large, multinational Empire with a diverse cultural and ethnic population.
You are talking about the French Revolutionary Wars - which were neither in the top 20 deadliest wars, nor started by Austria (France declared war on Austria, not the other way around). The French Revolutionary Wars are not the Napoleonic Wars. France also couldn’t have defeated “the Germans” several times by then - there was no Germany prior to 1871.
Last time I checked, French soldiers were believed to have been the largest group in the crusades. And really, last time I checked, the British Empire declared war against France.
The SA eroded heavily, but became irrelevant only in the late 30ies, certainly not before the Kristallnacht.The SS was in charge of most of Germany’s executive forces by the mid 30ies, and essentially all of it by the late 30ies. The Gestapo was a side note in this.
How do you even get to 5? WWI and II (which is a hell if a lot more complex than that), I guess the Thirty Years war (where deaths really only shot up after Sweden joins)…? Unless you somehow pin the Crusades and the Napoleonic wars on Germany I guess?
I wrote this elsewhere - you conveniently leave out the >3 million SA (which was about 30 times bigger than the German army at that point), and later the 800k SS. You also seem to ignore the myriad of violent exchanges between the SA/SS and centre-left/left-wing groups all the way back to the mid 1920s. The SA are generally seen as a key require for the Nazis getting into power. To pretend this was all a peaceful affair, and most Germans just had to say no, is revisionist history, sorry.
I’m genuinely shocked by people’s support of this. The SA - which we’d today call a paramilitary group - had about 3 million members by 1933 and their activities (which history books now describe as a “campaign of violence and terror”) were key to securing the 44% vote share that handed the NSDAP and Hitler their power (they couldn’t get more votes despite the SA’s actions). They dropped by about half after, but then the SS emerged, which peaked at ~ 800k. Plus the Gestapo.
By that logic, who is left innocent? I’ve been on the left my whole life, but I’m sure simply living in an affluent country would make me guilty for not resisting the global wealth disparity I benefit from by that logic.
Haha, thanks for pointing that one out!
As a scientist, there is a metric ton of really bad research on artificial sweeteners out there, but somehow that research gets immediately picked up by major newspapers - makes me very skeptical anytime another similar story comes up. Truth be told, oftentimes the devil is really in the detail with those, from wild extrapolations to absurd concentrations being used - so I can see why a newspaper editor/columnist might not know better.
insured, she should be insured publicly at no extra costs. If neither parent is insured through the public system, neither should the child? When the child leaves the insurance cover of their parents (usually age 25/26 or once they earn enough), and they were privately insured through their parents before, they get an excemption from the "no switching" rule and can just enter the public insurance scheme. I'm genuinely curious how your situation happened?
That just states that you can't switch from private to public insurance; that rule exists so people don't game the system by being privately insured when they are young (and pay low premiums) and then switch into the public system in old age. Your daughter should be I sured through the parents insurance (usually that of the higher earner); I don't know the costs of insuring a child privately (but that shouldn't be anywhere near 14% income), but if the higher earning parent is publicly 1/
Your daughter's public insurance costing you the full contribution while you are excluded sounds like something thar shouldn't happen though? I've never heard anything like that.
The German System is very much not designed for profit; ~90% of the German population is insured through public health insurance, which by law is non-profit. The idea behind having a large number of (non-profit) public health insurance providers is to enforce efficiency through competition.
Look up the Lotka-Volterra model. This won't go well for those species either.
It genuinely looks like the cat fell down - most cats don't just jump down balconies like that.
The cat was clearly limping away. I doubt hitting a human skull at that velocity left the car unharmed. And this was quite clearly not a cat doing a controlled jump either, it must have fallen down.
steroids, which often leads to muscle growth beyond what your skin can accommodate. The idea that creatine on its own causes stretch marks is a result of the common combined usage of the two - just as the myth that creatine causes male pattern baldness. 2/2
That's... not how that works. Creatine supplementation leads to higher amounts of creatine and phosohocreatine in your muscle cell (together acting as a storage system for energy, via the reaction phosphocreatine + ADP <-> creatine + ATP). With more (phospho)creatine in your cells, additional water enters your cells to maintain osmotic balance. The additional water involved in that process is not enough to cause stretch marks for an average individual. It only gets tricky once you take 1/2
Economically, through the US Dollar being the global reserve currency, one could argue that the US has gotten closer to world domination than any other country in history. IIRC the original plans of the Nazis envisioned control over less than 50% of European landmass, which I feel is not in line with people's assumptions of "world (or even European) domination".
So much this - the time he bought, plus his support for the RAF, set the conditions for Britain to maintain air superiority. Churchill was against all that, but somehow that gets forgotten.
Airborne owls that hit the cat without being noticed (ie the way owls hunt) of a certain size, yes. At that distance, and on the ground? If that cat wanted to, the owl would get eviscerated.
This is both beautiful and heartbreaking
It completely depends on your definition - chronologically, culturally, biologically? But across the board, 50ies tend to perceived as late middle age.
I didn’t pull that out of thin air btw, you can punch “middle age” into Wikipedia or google and see the same answer I’ve given.
So most people put the end of middle age around 60-65
End! The end of middle age! Typed too fast
It’s usually not an equal split, so most people put the beginning of middle age around 60-65. Most people would classify him at the end of middle age.
And to preempt this - if by “Germans” you mean “those of Germanic origin” (as “Germans” wasn’t really a thing in 1800), that’d have included England, most of Scandinavia, and most of Central Europe.
While I technically agree with all you said, I’m just not sure if this is helpful in any way past the abstract - is there any nation left on the planet that one could be a member of and considered innocent unless they take up arms against it? Because I genuinely can’t think of one?
Don’t waste your efforts, they are being historically revisionist to support some anti-German sentiment they seem to have. “German” wasn’t really a thing in 1800 - there was a shared cultural and ethnic origin, but by that logic, why stop at Austria, and not include eg the Dutch or the English. At the same time, Austria in 1800 was a large, multinational Empire with a diverse cultural and ethnic population.
You are talking about the French Revolutionary Wars - which were neither in the top 20 deadliest wars, nor started by Austria (France declared war on Austria, not the other way around). The French Revolutionary Wars are not the Napoleonic Wars. France also couldn’t have defeated “the Germans” several times by then - there was no Germany prior to 1871.
Last time I checked, French soldiers were believed to have been the largest group in the crusades. And really, last time I checked, the British Empire declared war against France.
The SA eroded heavily, but became irrelevant only in the late 30ies, certainly not before the Kristallnacht.
The SS was in charge of most of Germany’s executive forces by the mid 30ies, and essentially all of it by the late 30ies. The Gestapo was a side note in this.
How do you even get to 5? WWI and II (which is a hell if a lot more complex than that), I guess the Thirty Years war (where deaths really only shot up after Sweden joins)…? Unless you somehow pin the Crusades and the Napoleonic wars on Germany I guess?
I wrote this elsewhere - you conveniently leave out the >3 million SA (which was about 30 times bigger than the German army at that point), and later the 800k SS. You also seem to ignore the myriad of violent exchanges between the SA/SS and centre-left/left-wing groups all the way back to the mid 1920s. The SA are generally seen as a key require for the Nazis getting into power. To pretend this was all a peaceful affair, and most Germans just had to say no, is revisionist history, sorry.
I’m genuinely shocked by people’s support of this. The SA - which we’d today call a paramilitary group - had about 3 million members by 1933 and their activities (which history books now describe as a “campaign of violence and terror”) were key to securing the 44% vote share that handed the NSDAP and Hitler their power (they couldn’t get more votes despite the SA’s actions). They dropped by about half after, but then the SS emerged, which peaked at ~ 800k. Plus the Gestapo.
By that logic, who is left innocent? I’ve been on the left my whole life, but I’m sure simply living in an affluent country would make me guilty for not resisting the global wealth disparity I benefit from by that logic.
Haha, thanks for pointing that one out!
As a scientist, there is a metric ton of really bad research on artificial sweeteners out there, but somehow that research gets immediately picked up by major newspapers - makes me very skeptical anytime another similar story comes up. Truth be told, oftentimes the devil is really in the detail with those, from wild extrapolations to absurd concentrations being used - so I can see why a newspaper editor/columnist might not know better.
insured, she should be insured publicly at no extra costs. If neither parent is insured through the public system, neither should the child? When the child leaves the insurance cover of their parents (usually age 25/26 or once they earn enough), and they were privately insured through their parents before, they get an excemption from the "no switching" rule and can just enter the public insurance scheme. I'm genuinely curious how your situation happened?
That just states that you can't switch from private to public insurance; that rule exists so people don't game the system by being privately insured when they are young (and pay low premiums) and then switch into the public system in old age. Your daughter should be I sured through the parents insurance (usually that of the higher earner); I don't know the costs of insuring a child privately (but that shouldn't be anywhere near 14% income), but if the higher earning parent is publicly 1/
Your daughter's public insurance costing you the full contribution while you are excluded sounds like something thar shouldn't happen though? I've never heard anything like that.
The German System is very much not designed for profit; ~90% of the German population is insured through public health insurance, which by law is non-profit. The idea behind having a large number of (non-profit) public health insurance providers is to enforce efficiency through competition.
Look up the Lotka-Volterra model. This won't go well for those species either.
It genuinely looks like the cat fell down - most cats don't just jump down balconies like that.
The cat was clearly limping away. I doubt hitting a human skull at that velocity left the car unharmed. And this was quite clearly not a cat doing a controlled jump either, it must have fallen down.
steroids, which often leads to muscle growth beyond what your skin can accommodate. The idea that creatine on its own causes stretch marks is a result of the common combined usage of the two - just as the myth that creatine causes male pattern baldness. 2/2
That's... not how that works. Creatine supplementation leads to higher amounts of creatine and phosohocreatine in your muscle cell (together acting as a storage system for energy, via the reaction phosphocreatine + ADP <-> creatine + ATP). With more (phospho)creatine in your cells, additional water enters your cells to maintain osmotic balance. The additional water involved in that process is not enough to cause stretch marks for an average individual. It only gets tricky once you take 1/2
Economically, through the US Dollar being the global reserve currency, one could argue that the US has gotten closer to world domination than any other country in history. IIRC the original plans of the Nazis envisioned control over less than 50% of European landmass, which I feel is not in line with people's assumptions of "world (or even European) domination".