There didn’t seem to be any correlation with the main form of the dæmon and who the person was. Some characters I would have though would have had creatures considered “strong” had what would otherwise be prey animals. There’s even the tale about the person that didn’t like water, but became a sailor to be close to their dolphin (?) dæmon.
So as much as I’d like to choose an animal I would like, random chance would likely decide for me.
Doctors determined that the man had essentially overdosed on the glucocorticoids—he had taken doses that exceeded the normal levels of glucocorticoids in the body. The steroids likely suppressed immune responses, leading to his infections and GI ulcers. But, more significantly, the excess steroid levels also caused his HPA axis to essentially shut down. While it’s possible to get the HPA axis back up and running after withdrawal from excessive steroid use, the amount of time that takes can vary. Further, if a person stops taking large doses of glucocorticoids abruptly, rather than gradually—as in the man’s case—and particularly after chronic use—also as in the man’s case—it can lead to an adrenal crisis.
So what finally sent him to the hospital in a crisis was aburptly stopping all the supplements after his body had built up a dependency. So this would be like full alcoholics dying from going cold turkey.
Many food banks around the country are turning people away after running out of food. In that kind of context, I think $100 to the food bank likely does more good than $100 directly to individuals.
I know I’ve posted this at least 3 times now: My local food bank won’t accept cash donations
If I have $500 to donate, giving 25 people $20 each is gonna take a bunch of overhead in the searching and matching. Plus the logistics of actually being in the same place at the same time to hand over cash.
It look me less than 30 minutes to hand out $400 with $20 to a car to those in line at the food bank. Another time it did take a bit longer at about 40 minutes. Another time yet, it was again about 30 minutes. It was after the third time the food bank asked me to stop giving out cash to those in line. I respect their mission so I stopped. I’m looking for more ways to give directly. For a newly divorced mother of two small children I bought an old car and fixed it up for her with brand new tires and a tune up. I started this thread asking about how to identify those that need their groceries paid for. If you have more ideas about directly giving to those that need it, please share them. Please don’t just tell me to donate to another charity.
The beauty of the food bank is that it knocks out an expense for almost anyone who uses it, leaving them more cash to buy a tank of gas or school supplies or medication. Everyone needs food. Someone who needs more money for gas can get that if their grocery bill is reduced by $20. Money is fungible, so addressing the most fundamental needs ends up solving that problem of double coincidence that you’re alluding to.
I don’t understand why you keep presenting this as an “either/or” scenario. I’m fully in favor of food banks. I’m also in favor of giving cash directly to those that need it. If they already have food from the food bank, more food from the food bank won’t fill the gas tank. We need both food bank, and cash to those that need it.
But there is still a huge role to be played by nonprofit organizations, especially in meeting the foundational needs like food, water, shelter, and medical care.
I agree with you on this. Keep doing what you’re doing.
Canada proving that the despite its more northern latitude, there are more snowflakes in DC in the White House.
In that way, it’s still more efficient to give to cost-effective charities because meeting that need can still result in more cash in that needy person’s pocket.
This statement ignores two issues:
I appreciate you’re trying to take the macro approach and on paper its not wrong. In practice the limits of my donation ability isn’t going to move the needle on a city wide or nationwide approach. However, if I can put $20 in someone’s hand’s they can immediately address an urgent need or stave off an urgent need with $20 of mitigation. I don’t know of a charity that’s going to put $20 of gas in their car so they can continue to make it to work on time so they keep their job. I don’t know of a charity that will get them $20 worth of school fees so their kids can continue to get educated.
There’s no wrong way to donate that I can think of. Keep doing what you’re doing to help. I’ll keep doing my way too. Both of us are working on the same goal of helping others. We’re just going at it from different directions.
Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
The fact is, the larger food nonprofits can effectively feed people for cheaper than individuals can achieve on their own. Much of it comes from scale, and some of it comes from being able to manage supply chains to intercept what would be waste from distributors, retailers, etc.
I have two issues with your reply:
I’d love to give cash directly to my local food bank. They don’t accept cash donations, only credit card, personal checks, or ACH transfers. I also believe that food banks are likely better stewards of donations rather than giant charities with multiple layers of administration such as the United Way. I would love it if the food bank would allow me to walk in and hand them my cash.
Your response is solving only for the food problem. I fully agree that the food bank is a great solution with bulk buying and known logistics for collecting, buying, and dispensing food, but not all problems those in need have are food problems. If I give a $20 bill to someone, yes, they could “inefficiently” buy food with it. Or maybe they’ll get food from the food bank and they have more pressing needs that the food bank doesn’t solve like paying for medication, rent, or school supplies for their kids. Whatever the need is, I trust the person in need to spend the cash I give them as they know their needs better than anyone else. Frankly, I find others deciding on how those in need should spend money to be incredibly dismissive and condescending. These folks in need are just like us in every regard, except they don’t have as much money. We are equals in every way except life has given me enough money and them not enough. They are no worse than the rest of us on how they spend money. I can’t know their needs better than they do. I give cash directly to the person that needs it because I trust them to know how to spend it better than anyone else.
Now we know why trump is angling to get Ghislaine Maxwell out of prison. She needs to be there for the christening of the Epstein Ballroom.
You’re better off donating that money to a local food bank. Some stores around here also have pre-bagged meals that you can buy for them to donate to those in need, but the food bank will be able to stretch your money further.
I do that too, but the local largest food bank has conditions that don’t make it preferable for monetary donation. I would really prefer anonymous donations, and that isn’t easily possible with my food bank. They do not accept cash. Also, I would ultimately prefer my donations to go directly to the people that need it without administrative overhead shaving off percentages.
On multiple occasions I went to the food bank and handed out cash to patrons that were in line waiting for food. No strings, no obligations, just give them a friendly wave and hand them bills before moving on to the next car. I know people are in need if they’re at the food bank, and I trust they know how to spend the cash better than I do, so I give cash. The food bank asked me to stop doing that.
Well, I do feel younger when I’m listening to the Talking Heads or Bowie in the car.
That is, until the station break with something like “This is WXYZ! Great oldies from decades ago!”
If I’m at the grocery store and I want to pay for someone else’s groceries, what are clues I could see indicating that they are deeply in need?
No, this has been a part of IPv4 for a very long time. The behavior is defined here. There are also differences in how the collapse white space, primarily in that IPv6 can collapse multiple zero sections
" a.b When a two-part address is supplied, the last part shall be interpreted as a 24-bit quantity and placed in the rightmost three bytes of the network address. This makes the two-part address format convenient for specifying Class A network addresses as “net.host”."
You’re right. I’d never seen that usage before, but its in the man page.
The example did collapse multiple zero sections for IPv4 as well (127.69), and IPv6 can also only collapse one block, namely the longest one,
The IPv4 example collapsed two “blocks”, “.000.000.”, or rather octets, and could do so because they were next to one another, which looks to behave the same way IPv6 does. In IPv6 the largest number of all zero hextets can be removed and replaced with double colons. So multiple hextets ( .0000) can be removed in shortening as long as they are next to one another in the IP address.
Just to be pedantic, but was this a valid IPv4 address before IPv6 came out? That mechanism of collapsing a single set of repeating octets of “0” is a feature of IPv6.
So the behavior we’re seeing here, does this only result because that machine also supports IPv6?
No love for OpenBSD?
Come on, New York, elect someone cool for once.
Representative Ocasio-Cortez is pretty cool in my book and New York elected her.
Is this Jack Lang going to give the “proud boys” their Brownshirts, or will they be required to provide their own?
I love everything about the c64 and still have my vintage one from childhood. The article skips one absolutely vital component of c64’s success over consoles: software piracy
An Atari 2600 cartridge or even later a NES cartridge would set you back $20-$50. On the other hand, a box of 5.25" single density diskettes you could buy for under $10 and fit 5 to 30 games on by copying them with your friends. That was impossible with cartridges.
Lots of countries and even states in the USA are forcing “age verification” laws before displaying certain content. The OP in that link doesn’t say what state they were in or what article they were trying to read, but I’m wondering if their complaint is more with their state government passing draconian laws rather that Google on this one.