Yes to all that. I'll add: loved ones often have the idea that they will take care of the afflicted one until the very end.
What they don't realize is that caring for an Alzheimer's sufferer, in the later stages, can take years off the loved one's life. It is a hard, depressing, 24-hour job to take care of all the physical needs of someone who is no longer mentally there. Even worse if the caregiver is old or has health issues.
So do your family a favor, if finances allow, and urge them, while you still are able, to plan put you in an appropriate living arrangement (in an institution, or with full-time paid caregivers) when the time comes.
The email service luxsci.com scrubs a lot of information from your headers, if you wish [1].
Another well-known email provider allows you to scrub the IP address, but it isn't clear whether they mean to publicize it. So Google the name of your favorite email provider along with "hide ip address", and see what you can find.
Note that Twilio numbers (in the US, anyway) cannot receive SMS messages from short codes [1]. This means that you may not be able to receive SMS 2FA messages from your bank.
Is it necessary to create a new app? Because it seems to me that the source code of the current app its already owned by the Germans and should be made available.
> ...so they know to punish the right seller when a complaint comes in.
Since (according to others in this thread) the Amazon "Reason for return" menu does not provide the option "Item is counterfeit", it does not sound like Amazon is very interested in receiving these sorts of complaints. So I have to wonder how interested Amazon is in punishing the sellers of counterfeit items. If you close your ears to bad news, you won't hear any.
> You are correct that customers could themselves choose better sellers...
That's right. For items where genuineness really matters, I choose the seller "Sold by Walmart" at walmart.com. There are no reliable sellers at amazon.com, not even "Sold by Amazon". Which is a shame.
P.S. Reply to msbarnett, since I can't reply directly: Amazon does not literally put all identical items into a single physical bin, so it is at least feasible for them to keep track of which item came from which seller, if they choose to. I recommend that you (and other readers) take a tour of an Amazon fulfillment center: https://www.aboutamazon.com/amazon-fulfillment-center-tours/
It's pretty interesting.
It has "not as described" as an option. You can put in text explaining what wasn't as described: if it has keywords like "counterfeit" or similar, it will go into that seller's CCR (counterfeit complaint rate), and sellers with a bad CCR get suspended.
The exact thresholds aren't known, but they're pretty low: https://www.awesomedynamic.com/amazon-prime-wardrobe/ mentions thresholds of 30 PPM (and 500 PPM for just Materially Different Complaint Rate) to get into some seller program. Presumably the threshold rate for suspension is an order of magnitude or so higher than that. 500 PPM would be one complaint every 2,000 orders.
A facetious/serious question: If "Sold by Amazon" had too high a rate of reported counterfeits, could it be kicked off the Amazon platform?
But seriously, my point is that "Sold by Amazon" should have a counterfeit rate of near zero. I'm willing to help QC third-party sellers. But "Sold by Amazon" should do its own QC. Just as "Sold by Walmart" does (for now).
Sold by Amazon probably does have a very low rate. They're many times bigger than any third party seller, so the absolute number of counterfeits is probably higher.
The OP suggests bn.com (Barnes and Noble) for books. I haven't tried them myself. Yet.
For household goods I like walmart.com (the sold-by-Walmart items, not the ones from 3rd-party sellers). Free 2-day shipping (in the US) for orders over $35. A supply chain that (I hope and assume) does not allow 3rd party sellers to introduce counterfeits, unlike the so-called "sold by Amazon" items that are promiscuously commingled with items supplied by 3rd-party sellers.
So for anything where a counterfeit product could pose a health risk, I check walmart.com first.
(I feel a bit strange touting Walmart as the underdog, since it certainly comes with its own set of baggage, but it does seem to be one of the few companies big enough to keep Amazon from gaining a complete monopoly).
I've gone (back) to Target and Barnes and Noble for items that smaller shops don't sell. It has a lot to do with both of them being less than half a mile from where I live so I can walk there with ease, but both also still have very wide product availability and offer pickup from store for free or inexpensive rates.
There's plenty of small online stores selling all kinds of stuff. Recently I had ordered smoked paprika from Amazon UK because I can't find any where I live (France). I got regular paprika. So I ordered from a specialized online spice store, got my paprika and vowed never to order anything from Amazon ever again.
I have been using Alibris.com for most of my book purchases for almost a year now. They are usually cheaper than anyone else (Amazon, B&N, Abebooks, etc) and have fast enough shipping for my needs.
A handy website [1] notes at least a couple of B-52 nuclear incidents. In 1961, a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons broke up in mid-air over North Carolina; the bombs did not detonate [2]. In 1966, a B-52 crashed due to a mid-air collision with a refueling tanker over Spain. In this case, the non-nuclear explosives in two of the nuclear weapons detonated, scattering radioactive material [3].
So I would not say "zero nuke detonations". And your .00001% failure rate (I didn't check your math) is not meaningful unless compared to the failure rate of other aircraft. The B-52 is impressive, but not flawless.
Most people would not refer to the incident at Palomares as a "nuke detonation," since there was no nuclear detonation. No fissile reaction etc, just conventional explosives that are part of the weapons trigger. To call it a "nuke detonation" is disingenuous.
I think your numbers are probably correct. I don't happen to know another number: how many people in Chechnya would rather be independent than part of Russia. But it doesn't matter; the Russian government is very selective about how it applies the "right to self-determination".
The Russian government is likewise selective in its interpretation of the Budapest agreement (1994) [1], in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial integrity in return for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons.
Edit: I incorrectly wrote "Bucharest agreement"; fixed it (thanks jotm)
Russia is hardly unique in being selective in its support for the right of self-determination. The independence of Kosovo was illegal under international law, but supported by the United States and its allies. Most of those same countries are now sanctioning Russia for annexing Crimea, even though that was clearly the will of a large majority of Crimeans. Everyone is hypocritical about these matters.
Interestingly, Spain is somewhat consistent here: they don't recognize Kosovo, because they have their own separatist troubles in Catalonia.
But it doesn't matter; the Russian government is very selective about how it applies the "right to self-determination".
That's the crux of the issue I think. To be consistent you would surely have to support both Chechnya and Crimea having the right to self-determination - or neither having the right to self-determination.
EDIT: So let me ask you - do you support both, or neither?
Are you asking me? I would find it hard to be consistent: Kosovo, Abkhazia, Palestine, Chechnya, Crimea, so many choices to make, so many fine differences, so much tangled history.
I do (retrospectively) support the US decision in 1861 to prevent the Confederate states from seceding, despite the expressed will of the white, property-owning part of the local population, so there's that.
Sounds like you pick and choose based on how much you like the ethnic group in question - which is exactly why Russia supports it for Crimea but not for Chechnya.
Ethnic conflicts aren't soccer matches where you should pick a team to support.
In this discussion, I've explicitly (and quite off topic) expressed support for the Union side in the US Civil War, and I've implicitly supported Ukraine's side in the Crimean dispute. I don't think that gives you enough data points to deduce whether I choose sides on the basis of ethnicity, or because of a liking for the letter U, or (most probable?) a curmudgeonly dislike of change.
The US has in fact sanctioned Russian officials associated with the annexation of Crimea. [1]
You might also spare some sympathy for those residents of Crimea who did not wish to join the Russian Federation, for example, many Crimean Tatars. Not only have they suffered the loss of access to github, they also have to contend with a campaign of political repression. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos