So far, „sky“ is pretty nice

No. However, the FDP are basically terrorists at this point and will stop at nothing to praise the „Schwarze Null“

Im proposing building guillotines again. Just in case.

It’s an investment? Just like an office building or a company car?

Depends. Is it stable? Does it pose a threat to passer bys ?

I‘d have to get my tables from work. It highly depends on the species, soil, size, location, age, natural area of the species and so forth. A decently sized oak at around 100-150 years old usually gets weighed in at around 2000€. Variation however is a given.

Trees prevent soil erosion, keep water clean, provide the basis for many beneficial insects and so forth and so on. They have a giant value in our financial system.

All of these views are valid. A tree has to be seen for what it can provide. If it’s more valuable to society and nature as a tree, leave it be. If other trees can gain from it being removed earlier than its natural decay demands, I’d argue to remove it.

Dogs would be a good example for ring species, which show the outer limits of the species definition, if they they occurred in the wild in their many diverse forms. But since they are not, I’d group them as one species still, as their origin is artificial and so are, at least partly, their means of reproduction.

In theory: yes, most likely. In practice? No.

Please don’t.

I’d argue Dresden is rather nice, along with being home to some of these people, it would make them really feel their defeat I think.

As if. We are “digitalising” our government office right now, and have to file all incoming or produced documents physically still…

You realise how sexual morality is different from views on what constitutes a human being?

You don’t want the Catholic Church there. The bible differentiates between Fetus and children.

That’s the biblical way!

Every holiday at home feels like this….

A lot of these bodies were Ukrainian back then.

The phylogenetic results, combined with these other lines of evidence, suggest that the high mortality in 1918 among adults aged ∼20 to ∼40 y may have been due primarily to their childhood exposure to a doubly heterosubtypic putative H3N8 virus, which we estimate circulated from ∼1889–1900. All other age groups (except immunologically naive infants) were likely partially protected by childhood exposure to N1 and/or H1-related antigens.

The Spanish flu apparently had the N1 complex present, to which the 20-40y population wasn’t exposed. At least that’s my limited understanding after skimming the paper.

They argue that people born before 1889 (?) were exposed to a virus similar to the Spanish flu, whereas people born in a timeframe directly thereafter were not. They experienced a different virus that wasn’t as closely related. Thus their antibodies weren’t as prepared.