& the host quite likely committed a felony under German law.

Somewhere in Kazakhstan would be my guess.

TIL, thanks

Is that when they decided to make counting past 70 complicated?

One of the few genders German and French agree on is that a machine is female.

So, if a man is considered to be a machine he is female in that field.

Sorry, I don’t understand what I am seeing here. Is that someone xeeting a screenshot of someone reporting to Duolingo that penis should be feminine, not masculine in Spanish?

Tall buildings can block or funnel wind which can lead to smoggy and stormy areas. I assume at least Manhattan will have enough wind due to location and layout. However other cities that have a more medieval layout may have problematic areas. Most cities will do some kind of climate planning, I.e. where do wind and water go, are there any hot areas, etc. Here’s the starting page Frankfurts urban climate plan for air ducts for example. If you google „urban climate planning“ you’ll find tons of examples including NYC.

Why not offer a participation trophy called the ‚Noble Piece Prize‘? At his reading level he’ll not notice any difference and no one is going to tell him.

Earth 2? What do you think they want Greenland for?

It boils down to property tax as a means of preventing land accumulation and tax revenue generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

I don’t see how that would have worked even when it was invented.

Right now you can see how the rich own all the land and have no need to use or sell it. This way they create a shortage and can charge a higher price for the land they use or sell. IMO the only way to break this up to stop charging property tax at all - because all land ownership goes back to the state. If someone wants to use land they rent it from the state. If they do not use or misuse rented land the land goes to a different renter (or to the state).

Everything he does, except golfing and raping, is a distraction. That’s his job.

He should rot in jail, preferably the new one in Florida. Unfortunately that’s not going to happen though.

I think you’ll enjoy this: Silent Letter Day.

Removed by mod

That’s not what OP wrote though.

It’s fine. Taking at face value you’re supposedly 18 I was remembered of my kids talking about the old days - i.e. 10 year olds talking about stuff merely 2 years ago (Ok to them that’s like a is decade to us). So that granny comment was tongue in cheek as well… :-)

18F? Were you born a granny (or old person)?

Sorry, I’ll make it easy: just 3 little things to know:

1. Your study doesn’t prove what you say.
2. This is tricky, not just good or bad.
3. You need help; this is too hard for you.

Version for anyone reading this with at least average analytic capabilities:

I’m sorry, I seem to keep overestimating your analytic capabilities. I’m boiling it down to 3 simple points:

1. Your study - even while showing some bias - does not support your claims.
2. This - like most cases - is not a black and white one.
3. You are out of your depth - not only in this thread. Get help.

If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks.

Except the conclusion does not state that - regardless of how much you want it to. Please have someone explain that to you.

You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren’t as much of a risk?

Did you even try to read that study you linked? There are more risks than cars and their severity depends on time and location. Is it to hard a concept that in former times e.g. the risk of predation, disease , and other accidents combined with lack of access to veterinarians pose a higher risk?

But there’s such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can’t understand …

Similar to this snippet all of your replies seem to be motivated by emotion only - so much that it impairs your ability to assess your own sources. Just because you want your source to agree with you it doesn’t mean it really does.

… to accept the obvious conclusion.

Again, there is no obvious conclusion. There are no absolutes here - there are pros and cons related to both. How big they are varies by location (see e.g. #2.2 paragraph of the study you linked). I’d like to add that the character of the cat also plays a very massive role - This is missing in this particular study though. Again, have someone explain it to you. Alternatively you could feed it to an AI (see below).

I’d guess most cat owners would prefer their cat|s stay indoors, at least in cities (me being one of them tbh). Some cats don’t accept being locked up though - regardless of the amount of entertainment provided.

(AI) E.g. here is what mistral.ai answers to “does this study say you should only keep cats indoors?”

The study does not explicitly state that cats should only be kept indoors. Instead, it presents a balanced review of the risks and benefits associated with outdoor access for cats. The study discusses various welfare concerns related to uncontrolled outdoor access, such as increased risks of disease, parasites, injury, and predation, as well as negative impacts on wildlife and human neighbors. However, it also acknowledges the welfare benefits of outdoor access, including the opportunity for cats to engage in natural behaviors like hunting, exploring, and climbing, which can improve their physical and mental well-being.

Overall, the study emphasizes the need for further research to better understand the impacts of different housing and enrichment strategies on cat welfare, as well as the attitudes and practices of cat owners regarding outdoor access.

Assuming you have noone explaining complicted stuff to you or you being unwilling to listen to advice: Feed the study to an AI with reasoning engine (e.g. deepseek) and ask some questions about it. Make sure to ask whether the study is biased and whether (obvious) factors have been omitted. You can learn somehting there as the analytic capacity of AI with reasoning engine is vastly superiout to yours.

The study weighs the pros and cons of outdoor and indoor keeping. It also offers some ideas how to mitigate the cons. It’s an interesting study, you should ask someone to explain it to you.

The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.