Aren't tankies authoritarian leftists? What's "right" about them?
Actually, yes. Light travels about 30cm in a nanosecond, around the size of a cucumber.
They're probably picturing the typical American grocery store: giant warehouse-like building, massive parking lot, tons of people coming and going. It would be a bad idea to put one of those in the middle of a neighborhood.
For a while I just couldn't play souls-likes. The enemy attacks were blatantly undodgeable. Like, even if you move at the maximum possible speed, in any direction, at the very start of an animation, you can't get out of the way. Then I realized you're not really supposed to get out of the way, you're supposed to abuse the immunity frames from the roll to "dodge" straight through the attacks. Basically the opposite of what I had been doing.
It annoys me that people keep saying "figuratively" is what they mean instead of "literally". "Figuratively" may be the opposite, and technically correct, but the use of the word "literally" in this way is to strengthen a statement. A more appropriate correction would be "actually" or "seriously", which holds the intended meaning. "Figuratively" is the last thing it should be replaced with.
I'm pretty sure the baseline questions are things they already know the answer to. Like what's your name, where were you born, etc. So lying about them would be obvious.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I'm guessing you're not so against.
I think you're missing the point of the -porn suffix. Its not supposed to convey "the study of" or "images of". Its meant to convey that viewing it is satisfying in some primitive/emotional/aesthetic way. NaturePorn isn't just "pictures of nature", it's "pictures of nature that suck me in and make me want to see more". In that regard, the comparison to sex is intentional.
I doubt you want to. Its probably at least a terabyte.
I used to consider myself republican, and I think I'm still closer to republican than democrat. I prefer small government, which is at least sometimes a republican ideal. I am also against identity politics of any kind, so I am against affirmative action. I am in favor of gun rights, with regulations that allow for appropriate tracking of who has guns where, how they are stored, how they are transported etc. However, regulations that prevent particular people from owning guns or ban any particular weapons should be very conservative. Even felons should regain gun rights after an appropriate period of time. Only ridiculously dangerous weapons, like nukes, should be outright banned. Stuff like full auto weapons should be legal, but restricted to only be stored at a gun range or something. As far as LGBT goes, I don't think the government should have anything to do with them. Let them do what they want, let people react how they want (as long as it isn't violent of course, which is already illegal under other laws). I've never been really sure about abortion. My gut reaction is to just let people do what they want, but I struggle to logically justify it as anything but murder. Not to mention the impracticality of banning it.
I wouldn't really call myself a republican anymore though. This is largely because of the religious aspects. I don't know if republicans have actually become more authoritarian or if my perception has just changed, but either way they don't seem to prioritize the same things as me anymore. Things like right to repair, net neutrality, and E2EE are important to me, but they don't align with that at all. The party also keeps embracing identity politics, just with different identities than their opposition. Religion should be a non-factor from a governmental perspective. It doesn't need any special protections, just to be ignored.
If I had to call myself something, I guess I would be a 'libertarian socialist', however much of an oxymoron that seems to be. For instance, I like the idea of UBI, largely because it would allow almost all welfare/social programs to be eliminated (including social security). Doing so would reduce government control, because they no longer have an ability to tweak who gets what, since everyone gets the same amount.
Y2K specifically makes no sense though. Any reasonable way of storing a year would use a binary integer of some length (especially when you want to use as little memory as possible). The same goes for manipulations; they are faster, more memory efficient, and easier to implement in binary. With an 8-bit signed integer counting from 1900, the concerning overflows would occur in 2028, not 2000. A base 10 representation would require at least 8 bits to store a two digit number anyway. There is no advantage to a base 10 representation, and there never has been. For Y2K to have been anything more significant than a text formatting issue, a whole lot of programmers would have had to go out of their way to be really, really bad at their jobs. Also, usage of dates beyond 2000 would have increased gradually for decades leading up to it, so the idea it would be any sort of sudden catastrophe is absurd.