I'll certainly grant you the Statist label, but I still don't see how being critical of the state is simping. And I would argue, like the article, that rather than being inspired by these resilient groups, your first response should be an intense anger at the state for failing so badly, with that inspiration or admiration being a distant second.

99% of the time I drive, my car insurance has no bearing on the outcome of my trip, but I really appreciate it that 1% of the time it does.

There's nothing significant stopping you from spinning up an instance and writing a script to create accounts and give him upvotes. Be the change you want to see!

It's a very American view to think that individuals in the community having to step in to keep people from dying is more reasonable than the government of one of the wealthiest nations in the world stepping in to keep people from dying. And somehow criticizing the state for failing to provide for the most basic needs of its citizens is simping.

None of the people using the wood bank are taking their wellbeing into their own hands. They're relying on their community to support them so they don't die. And that's great that it's happening, but it's shifty that the government, ostensibly the representative of the community, can't institutionalize what is clearly the will of the community.

Summarize that sentence into a thumbs up or thumbs down emoji.

Political leaders need to know they have accountability, otherwise they don't work for the people. Death is the ultimate accountability. Like most significant and irreversible options, it should be used as a last resort.

The kind of truck that can handle any kinds of undeveloped forest are more expensive than the land you say is too expensive for the people who would want to do what you're saying. So, unrealistic expectations all around.

I like how your dream of self-sufficiency starts with there being g a road you can drive on. Or do you think most woods are reasonable places for driving trucks? You'd be better off buying a donkey or mule. Worst case scenario, you'd have a bit more meat to eat before you starved.

I almost always called family from the previous generations by title and first name, or just title. So, Grandpa, Aunt Sue, etc. Cousins and siblings got first name only. My kids call their immediate parents mom and dad, and their step-parents mom or my wife's first name. I rarely associate with my ex or her husband, and they refer to him when talking to me by his first name. If they were close enough to him to refer to him as dad, I'd be happy for them to have that good a relationship.

The good news is RFC 3339 doesn't have this problem and is an unambiguous subset of ISO 8601.

A single point of data rarely answers the question unless you're looking for absolutes. "Will zipping 10 files individually be smaller than zipping them into a single file?" Sure, easy enough to do it once. Now, what kind of data are we talking about? How big, and how random, is the data in those files? Does it get better with more files, or is the a sweet spot where it's better, but it's worse if you use too few files, or too many? I don't think you could test for those scenarios very quickly, and they all fall under the original question. OTOH, someone who has studied the subject could probably give you an answer easily enough in just a few minutes. Or he could have tried a web search and find the answer, which pretty much comes down to, "It depends which compression system you use."

And feeling a cop.