@fumeya2@miradreaamy The whole quiz should have been made without any value for the angles , because it's obvious for the isosceles triangle and therefore for the rest. From left to right 60 (where wrongly was 40), then 60 (the inner angle), then 60, then 90 (what was not well drawn), so x=30.
@sephthreek Wenn ihr tolles Mehr vom Brutto für Sachen draufgeht, die der angeblich sozialistische Staat bislang für Sie geleistet hat, dann ist das ein Gewinn?
Me firmé una hipoteca de 180.000€.
30 años.
Cuota: 680€ al mes.
Me senté esa noche a hacer los números reales.
680€ × 12 meses × 30 años.
Total pagado: 244.800€.
Vale. 64.000€ de intereses. Asumible.
El banco me lo había explicado así.
El banco me lo había vendido así.
Firmé sin hacer más preguntas.
Tres años después un amigo contable me pregunta:
— ¿Sabes cuánto capital has amortizado ya?
— Calculo que unos 7.000€ ¿no?
Se ríe.
Me enseña el cuadro de amortización que el banco nunca me puso delante. 👇
The year is 1949.
The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more here in Britain.
The year is 1956.
Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over.
The year is 1966.
A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots.
The year is 1979.
Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005.
The year is 1985.
Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning.
The year is 1992.
There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top.
Now it is today.
Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with.
So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now.
Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one.
It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.
@SHomburg Profane Überlegung, jedoch so einfach wie gut: Die Erde ist ein geschlossenes System, hier geht nichts "verloren", wo soll es auch hin? Wassermangel ist ein menschengemachtes Pseudoproblem.
@Kawoom3 Menschen im fortgeschrittenen Lebensalter verstehen unter Jahrhundertwende den Jahreswechsel am 31.12.1899, denn zum Silvester 1999 wechselte zwar auch ein Jahrhundert, aber dominant ist der Wechsel des Jahrtausends.
for English see below
Ärzteverfolgung in Deutschland
@SecKennedy: Anlässlich des 4. Corona-Symposiums im Bundestag schilderte der Arzt Dr. Walter Weber die weitreichenden rechtlichen Konsequenzen, mit denen er und viele seiner Kollegen im Zusammenhang mit der Ausstellung von ärztlichen Attesten konfrontiert waren. Er berichtet, dass über 1.000 Ärzte zu Geldstrafen zwischen 5.000 und 50.000 Euro oder zu Freiheitsstrafen verurteilt wurden. Der Referent selbst erhielt vom Landgericht Hamburg eine Bewährungsstrafe von einem Jahr und zehn Monaten, ein Urteil, das anschließend vom Bundesgerichtshof bestätigt wurde.
Seine Anwälte bezeichnen das Gerichtsverfahren als „rein politisch” und betonen, dass 74 von 75 von seinem Anwaltsteam vorgelegten Beweisanträgen abgelehnt wurden, oft ohne Begründung. Zentral für seine Verurteilung nach § 278 war die Forderung nach einer körperlichen Untersuchung vor der Ausstellung eines Attests; der Arzt behauptet jedoch, dass eine solche Anforderung weder im Gesetz noch in den Berufsordnungen ausdrücklich festgelegt ist.
Trotz Prozesskosten in Höhe von über 100.000 Euro und mehr als 50 Gerichtsterminen bleibt Weber hartnäckig. Er bestätigte die Einschätzung des Richters, dass er „uneinsichtig” sei, und erklärte, er würde bei Gelegenheit wieder genauso handeln. Er verglich einen Arzt, dem die Ausstellung von Attesten untersagt ist, mit einem „Schuhmacher, der keine Schuhe herstellen darf” und kündigte an, seinen Fall vor das Bundesverfassungsgericht und, falls erforderlich, vor den Europäischen Gerichtshof zu bringen.
In English:
Persecution of doctors in Germany
In a recent interview physician Dr. Walter Weber detailed the extensive legal consequences he and many colleagues have faced regarding the issuance of medical certificates. He reports that over 1,000 doctors have been sentenced to fines between €5,000 and €50,000 or imprisonment. Weber himself received a probationary sentence of one year and ten months from the Hamburg District Court, a verdict that was subsequently upheld by the Federal Court of Justice.
His lawyers characterise the legal proceedings as "purely political", highlighting that 74 out of 75 evidence motions presented by his legal team were rejected, often without justification. Central to his conviction under Paragraph 278 was the requirement for a physical examination before issuing a certificate; however, the doctor maintains that such a requirement is not explicitly stated in the law or professional codes of conduct.
Despite facing over €100,000 in legal costs and appearing in court more than 50 times, Dr. Weber remains defiant. He confirmed the trial judge's assessment that he is "unrepentant," asserting that he would act the same way again if given the chance. Comparing a doctor forbidden from issuing certificates to a "shoemaker who is not allowed to make shoes," he announced plans to take his case to the Federal Constitutional Court and, if necessary, the European Court of Justice.