bacondude3

PSA: with Mailchimp URLs, it's best to remove the `?e=xxx` URL parameter. That way, A) you can't be identified by the sender as the person who shared the email, and B) other people can't flood your inbox by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email.

In this case, the cleaned URL that should have been posted is https://mailchi.mp/ubnt/account-notification

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25687552

I agree with you, but to answer your argument: the difference is that one is airlines choosing who they want to serve, and the other is the government choosing who airlines are allowed to serve.

I have no problem with the former, but I have a big problem with the latter, particularly as it's currently implemented.

I honestly don't get what you're trying to accomplish here. The original question was this:

"How does a doctor/hospital/insurer benefit from putting Covid-19 on the death certificate?"

My read of this question is that the person was unaware of the extra funding made available to hospitals taking COVID-19 patients. Therefore, I gave a link to a USA Today article which explained the facts.

I didn't say that there aren't ways for hospitals to make more money than they get by caring for COVID-19 patients. My only point, which I'll reiterate, is that the government provides additional funding to hospitals that take COVID-19 patients.

I haven't indicated whether I think that's good or bad, and I haven't indicated whether I think the additional funding has been abused or not. I just gave information about government funding of hospitals to somebody who asked a question about the subject.

> ten covid deaths have even been rumored (falsely) to be worth

Is there a problem with the USA Today article I posted? If the numbers are wrong, I'll be happy to correct it.

> This is a pointless argument that harms public health, and those who wish to distinguish themselves from Q shouldn't make it.

I haven't made an argument, and I haven't harmed public health. You're still reading things I didn't write and then making assumptions about me with no basis. Please stop. Slow down, reread everything I've written. Then reply here without fighting windmills so we can converse.

I didn't say hospitals haven't undergone financial hardship due to COVID-19. In fact, the reason for the extra funding is precisely to alleviate the stress under which hospitals have been for the past ~year.

All I said was that hospitals receive extra funding from the government for taking in COVID-19 patients, relative to "normal" patients. This is indisputable and I was not making a broader point.

Don't try to lump me into a group such as QANON based on something I didn't say.

It's pretty well-established fact that hospitals benefit financially by taking COVID-19 patients. For example, see this source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fac...

There are projects such as iFrame Resizer [0] for this, and you're correct that it does require cooperation from the iframe source.

[0]: https://davidjbradshaw.github.io/iframe-resizer/

This is actually standard practice (in the U.S.), and there are official procedures to recover unclaimed assets. See: https://www.usa.gov/unclaimed-money

State laws that contradict federal legislation is not a foundation of Federalism, though.

Do you have a source for that? I don't really understand why shotgun rounds would be less dangerous, particularly if rifle rounds are more dangerous. More powder = more dangerous would make sense to me, but that doesn't sound like what you're saying.

Some parts of Florida are more humid than Appalachia, so maybe the difference between 75% and 95% humidity has a greater effect than 55% to 75%.

> For me the danger of all these externalities outweighs the potential gains.

Fair enough, I'm not here to tell you how to live your life.

I know a lot of veterans struggle with depression and PTSD, so I don't blame you for taking that aspect seriously.

Regarding getting along with one's spouse, maybe that's just something I won't understand without getting married.

Again, wrong. Ammo is not dangerous in a fire: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c

As for humidity, I think you would be surprised. Much of Appalachia and the East Coast have high humidity levels (typically 70-90% during summer IIRC) and I've never found ammo damaged by humidity there. I've shot 25 year old ammo that was put in an ammo can and dumped in a hiding spot near a pond (so, very high humidity) and had no issues shooting with it. Even if the ammo is stored in the manufacturer's cardboard box, I wouldn't worry about humidity damage unless average levels are over 85 or 90%. Water damage is a different matter, but I don't have any experience with that.

I don't doubt that you've considered your experience and knowledge in coming to the decision to not own a gun. My response wasn't flippant, and I'm sorry it came across that way.

I grew up around (unlocked) guns and knew better than to even think about touching one of them while I was a child. I am aware that many children aren't taught proper respect for firearms, which is part of why I recommended keeping them locked up. (The guns, not the children...)

My comment about soldiers is based on my personal interactions with them. I know they go through gun safety handling, but in practice they frequently have very poor muzzle discipline ("But it's unloaded!": I don't care). I've also talked to a few soldiers who had never heard of the four rules of gun safety, either by name or after hearing them listed out, so I don't think all soldiers have had gun safety drilled into them as strongly as you may have.

I don't live in barracks, but my understanding of military life as a whole is that the military has to support the lowest common denominator in their troops. If you have children, you probably aren't a hotheaded 20 year old anymore, and it seems like that should factor into your decision making process, no?

The other two points (being shot by a spouse or burglar using your own gun), frankly sound silly to me. You listed four categories, but only two of them are responsible for a large number of firearm deaths. It's extremely rare for a burglar to take and use a victim's gun against the victim, and also pretty rare for a spouse to murder the other.

And just to reiterate what I said in my first post, if you're even a little worried you might lose control and kill your spouse, or your spouse might kill you, you need to see a counselor right now regardless of whether you have guns or not. (Alternatively, if you do get along with your spouse, then I'm not sure why you factored that into your decision to not own a gun?)

I am making this post in good faith, and I hope you'll respond.

The first two problems would be easily prevented by keeping your firearms in a safe. If you're worried about arguments with your spouse becoming fatal, please talk to a counselor ASAP.

As for negligent discharges, which are probably the most legitimate concern, you should always follow the four rules of gun safety:

1. Treat all guns as if they are always loaded.

2. Never let the muzzle point at anything that you are not willing to destroy.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on target and you have made the decision to shoot.

4. Be sure of your target and what is behind it.

In my experience, these are hammered into civilian students who take firearm training classes, but soldiers in the military often haven't heard of the four rules and generally are far more casual with their guns than civilians.

This is not true. 50 year old ammo will shoot indistinguishably from new ammo if both have been stored correctly. Prolonged exposure to water or high humidity can damage cartridges by preventing the powder from burning, but that doesn't make it more dangerous, only useless (at worst).

Looks promising. Thanks!

I've used Google Data Studio + Heroku Postgres for a similar purpose. Works great, but I wish there were an OSS alternative to Data Studio.

Yeah, but package managers are exactly what I want to avoid here :)

That looks a tad more basic than what I'd like, but I'll give it a try. Thanks for the links!

Thanks for the suggestion!

Some of the other commenters have pointed out that Hugo also has standalone binaries, I just didn't notice them last time I looked. What made you choose Zola over Hugo?

Thanks! Where can I read more about that? I looked at musl's website, but didn't see any mention of standalone binaries on the page comparing it to glibc. [0]

[0]: https://wiki.musl-libc.org/functional-differences-from-glibc...

I hadn't thought of CPU architecture problems since all of my computers in the past decade or so have used the same architecture, but that's a good point.

I understand sticking the generator in the repo isn't a good practice, but I really just want a simple setup that won't have dependency problems. Probably an executable shell or Python file that doesn't draw in any dependencies would be ideal for me since those can run on pretty much any Linux computer in my experience.

Based off the recommendations here, I'll likely migrate my Jekyll site to Hugo or this one which was recommended by another commenter in the thread: https://rgz.ee/ssg.html

Right now, do you just keep Hugo in your `$PATH`? If you do that, do you need to note in your site's README which version of Hugo it should be built with, or are Hugo versions pretty backwards-compatible with each other?

That still has an external dependency for Markdown, but yeah, that's basically exactly what I'm looking for. I might just stick Markdown.pl in the git directory with the shell file so that dependencies aren't a problem.

Thanks!

Documentation here: https://rgz.ee/ssg.html

I don't know much about Rust. Can it be compiled into a standalone binary? C programs typically rely on header files and are not standalone, and Rust is (basically) C but with safeguards around memory, right?

Thanks. I had looked at Hugo before, but somehow didn't see the precompiled binary as an installation option. I'll try it out.

Deal with a Jekyll site that sat unattended for two years and was built using the default Ubuntu ruby packages and you'll understand.

It looks like Hugo does provide a static executable. I'm aware that Go is known for providing standalone binaries, but last time I checked Hugo's website I didn't notice the binary installation method [0], which is why I mentioned it as equivalent with Jekyll. I'll give it another look.

Regarding Ruby, Gems on Linux is a mess that I don't want to have to deal with for anything, but especially not for a static site generator.

Rust probably could provide a precompiled binary, but the recommended installation method for Blades involves `cargo` which is why I asked the question.

https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/#binary-cross-p...

Thanks. I had looked at Hugo before, but I guess I just didn't see the binary install option. (https://gohugo.io/getting-started/installing/#binary-cross-p...)

All I want is a static site generator that sits in an executable file in my project's directory and doesn't require any dependencies so that I can run `./ssg build` and have all of my Markdown files interpolated into my template files and put in their own directory. I don't want to have to install all of the dependencies for Ruby or Hugo or Blades, cool as this project looks. Are there any SSGs that fill that niche?

(A Python executable would be fine since pretty much every Linux computer has Python, but I don't want to have to deal with pip).

"If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going"