That video contradicts it's entire thesis and disproves his own title.
He claims it sucks, and that he can prove it with math, yet he documents it's unparalleled success at killing friendly forces.
So tell me, how can it both be the best in the world, and suck at the same time.
You're missing the standard issue binoculars, which is pretty mission critical kit. Because without the binoculars, they can't see the friendly forces they're aiming their strafing run at.
Or because it was terrible, and also very expensive.
It's amazing how these articles always mention review bombing, but they never mention that there's also active campaigns of review fluffing, from paid, and otherwise influenced, shills.
Disney has been making bad Star wars for years now, and it's not sexist, ironic, racist, conservative, liberal, or contrarian, to point that out. This show, like most Disney Star Wars productions, sucked. It was bad.
Mandalorian season 1 was great, and so was Andor. It's not like fans don't want to, or can't see, when good projects emerge. But those shows are the exception, not the rule.
The weirdest thing to me, as someone who read a lot of the Star Wars books as a kid, is there is so much good material to adapt, but they insist on getting showrunners who clearly don't like Star Wars, or the established lore.
It feels like they resent having to work on a franchise, which I can understand, so instead of embracing the developed world, they want to make it their "own" by breaking the conventions, established rules, and existing canon.
I know that often gets blamed on their political views, but I think it's just as much a reaction to creatives finding most opportunities are just working within someone else's creation.
Still, even if I can empathize on why they might be rebelling, it still doesn't make for an enjoyable viewing experience. The show suck, the next show will probably also suck, but much like the MCU, I haven't cared in years, even if I'm still open to being surprised.
Not everyone has a safety deposit box, or the ability to access a proper and secure off-site storage.
And if you're just keeping those in your house, then fire, flood, and other incidents can destroy all copies at once.
Your list of semi non-perishable foods does need some caveats about storage, because most of those things can go bad, depending on how they were stored.
Frozen meat can spoil, as not all bacterial growth stops, some just slows down a whole lot. So if Grandma threw in a store plastic wrapped tray of chicken quarters, after being in the fridge for 3 days, and now it's 8 years later, those might not be safe for human consumption.
Stuff that was vacuum sealed, much more likely to last the long haul in the freezer, if done properly.
Long-term stored grain, when not in vacuum sealed or other airtight containers, can develop molds or other bacterial contaminations.
Improperly stored vinegar, if you try to use it...it will ruin your salad dressing, and taste like shit. But it's pretty easy to see if vinegar has gone ick.
Can't say I've ever seen moldy or spoiled vinegar, but I've seen the type of kitchens that would be capable of making it happen in a long enough time frame.
I've also never seen bad dry storage pasta or beans, but I imagine they carry the same long-term storage concerns as grains, even if they're probably a bit more durable.
Aging for whiskey and scotch is done in specialized wood barrels with specific environmental conditions, not in the bottle.
If the hard booze bottles been opened for a long time, it's always possible some evaporation, or other slight changes have occurred that may impact taste, but still perfectly safe. Assuming it's 80 proof and up.
Throw out open wines if you're not comfortable determining if they're still consumable and not spoiled.
TLDR: Toss opened bottles of wine, but any hard liquor should be safe, even if it taste is degraded.
Nah, I'm with you, except I use BitWarden.
There are somethings either worth paying someone else to host, or where you trust a 3rd party more than you're own setup. I realize other users may feel different, but ultimately it's a judgement call
BW has been a pretty great opensource company, and it's worth my $10/yr for premium.
Unless there's a way to secure public funding for them, this seems like a reasonable middle road.
Like Patreon, which while having its own unique set of problems, enables a paid content distribution ecosystem for independent creators unlike anything else available.
So, absent inserting invasive advertising, and lacking public funds, I can't see how else they're supposed to maintain infrastructure and development costs.