https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlWQ2YLO5To
here's a youtuber that claims to be a licensed lawyer in Arizona. From what she says, in Arizona nipple only coverings would be sufficient in Arizona but other states specifically call out the need for covering the lower half the boobs as well which is odd to me with the whole "exposed underboob" trend that comes and goes occasionally when some bit of fashion uses it.

i mean you say that, a woman walking around wearing only plastered circles over her nipples as a top would likely get hit with indecent exposure in more strict parts of states that havent yet added a "if men are allowed women are allowed" law yet

just for reference, it doesnt take much for a human to bleed what will look like a lot, that amount of blood probably wont even be noticed as missing consciously or otherwise by the intruder unless he's got an underlying issue excepting for the pain at the wound itself.

Another fun fact about the civil war and native tribes, there are recorded instances of entirely native military units refusing orders from confederate top brass to attack groups of other natives that sided with the union as they only had issue with the union, not the other tribes and didn't want to attack other people in the same situation as them relative to the people they joined the war to get free of.

:D thanks for thinking of me friend!
ye this isnt that weird. Many native tribes sided with the confederacy. It was actually rather common for native tribes to be treated more humanely and more like equals as humans by confederate go-between folk than with union feds assigned to deal with the "native issue."

ok, having found the tweet in question, its apparently just how twitter shows that the helper's message is replying to the top most tweet, I'm disappointed

ah yes, then please do summarize my point in one sentence without losing any detail or context for any of the request information for said point as well as keeping said sentence entirely faithful to the original concept, such that you could read the "summarized sentence" without having known that the comment i posted existed and still have communicated to you the full information.

its not a contradiction. It would be a contradiction if it said "there is no one that pirates that would be willing to pay if the only way to pirate was to put in a moderate amount of effort."
the entire point of the whole shebang in the first common that i wrote is that its only the majority, its not 100% of people that pirate. These kinds of measures put those "potential customers that are the minority" into a situation of "pay or not access without putting in effort."
Another analogy to put it up against, its like the extreme vast majority of political campaigning. basically none of their effort is going towards changing the actions of people who are going to do a given thing no matter what you do, its going to change the acts of the extreme minority that doesn't have a per-determined action, in the case of political campaigning its getting inbetweeners and anyone that isnt a hardline democat or republican that always votes party loyalty.

It's the same principle as putting a lock on something in a moderately accessible to the public space. The lock isnt there to actually stop someone motivated and determined to steal your shit. It's there to stop the vast majority of the rest of people that see the lock and keep going. it's there to stop the people that would be willing to steal it or in this case pirate it if it took no effort or thought but arent willing to put literally even the tiniest bit of effort into it. That's the vast majority of people that give a shit enough about sharing content to people looking for pirated stuff especially in cases like onlyfans where the person had to pay money to get in rather than the physical item like a bike where its an opportunity to take something at no cost to yourself rather than an opportunity to pay money to give other people free stuff taht would have cost them money.

i mean its entirely possible that the people that property in those areas of the city went bankrupt and someone else bought the foreclosed land dirt cheap because of the price going down 10000000 fold from the land being less than empty, instead full of "things that will cost you money to deal with"

"its your fault that your parents never taught you skills that parents are supposed to teach you"

The currently accepted figures for casualties are as follows; The US and south vietnam's side, including all their allies that had boots on the ground, had around 300 thousand deaths and over 1.3 million wounded, the north's side, including all their allies that had boots on the ground, had about 600 thousand deaths and only about 600 thousand wounded.
regardless of what metric you use for if the US "won" the war or not, they didnt achieve the goals they got involved in the conflict in the first place for, yea they won battles, yea they killed a bunch of people, but no, the country they went to aid STOPPED EXISTING because the war was won by the north.

the US's publicly stated goals was to stop the spread of communism, to "prove to the communist world that wars of national liberation cannot succeed", and to persuade the north to stop expanding into the south, and a variety of things that all require south Vietnam to still exist after the war.
Lets look at those goals one by one and see how they panned out
the south surrendered to the north and was absorbed by the north into a new "basically just the north's politics but the whole land mass" country. making anything requiring the existence of the south Vietnam to be a failed goal, the north was not stopped from expanding southward, it expanded all the way to taking over the whole area. They didn't stop the "national liberation war" and said war did succeed. They also didn't stop the spread of communism in the region.
Just because the US won some battles doesnt mean shit.

its far harder to knock a nuclear plant out of service than it is to knock any other type of power generation out of service, example, during hurricane florance in 2018 only one nuclear plant in the affected region shut down and they did it preemptively as per their sites protocols, all other plants in the affected regions continued to run and didnt see any noticeable drop in power supply during the entire hurricane.
A more "related to the current cold weather" example, winter storm juno in 2015 was a full on blizzard. 23 out of 24 of the regions nuclear plants continued to function at 100% power output during the entire event, the 24th shut down not because of anything with the nuclear plant but because the electrical transmission systems outside the plant were damaged. Nuclear power would not have cared about whats going on recently.

the system systems of nuclear plants make it so that even in the case of a full failure a melt down basically isn't possible at a level that affects basically anything outside the plant itself

even if they really spent 300 dollars on it, its been making acceptable quality toast for 50 years, that's definitely not a waste of money.

and just to clarify on the rarity part being technically correct rather than fully correct, rarity doesnt have an absolute way of measuring it, one could just as easily measure the rarity of an object by looking at its average accessability to any given living sentient being. How rare is X thing on average to any living thing compared to how rare is Y thing on average for any given living being. That measure would very likely show that, assuming you consider organic material grown by something similar to a tree elsewhere from earth to be "wood" that wood would still be far more accessible on average.