The key phrase here being at the time of his death. The most decorated Marine in US history, since at least 1955, was and remains Lt. Gen Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller. Just about very Marine can remember doing "one more for Chesty" at the pullup bar or saying "goodnight Chesty, wherever you are" before lights out during boot.

I remember a story about one of the forward camps in Iraq where a portable toilet had scrawled on the wall, "Anyone can piss on the seat, be a hero and shit on the ceiling!"

The economist Thomas Sowell devoted an entire chapter of his book Economic Facts and Fallacies to "Male-Female Facts and Fallacies", including the question of gender inequality in the workplace. In all of the studies and data that he examined, dating back to the early part of the 20th century and continuing up through today, the single biggest factor in different workplace outcomes between men and women was not discrimination, but rather life choices which women commonly make, at the expense of maximizing their careers, but men do not. For example, it was and remains common for women to take an extended detour in their careers in order to have and raise young children and women are more willing to abandon what might otherwise be a promising career in order to do so. Furthermore, women are less likely to accept the sorts of high paying and high demand careers that men often do because attaining that level in a career requires years or even decades of dedicated work to achieve and leaves no time for raising a family or doing anything else but the career (i.e. the "glass ceiling" in the C-Suite). Sowell also found that the data is further skewed by the fact that men who are married to a female who does not work, but instead contributes home making, childcare and other household needs to the family coffers further enhances the career maximizing potential of the married man. In other words, all other things being equal, the married man earned more than his unmarried and similarly skilled male counterparts. Sowell argues that this difference is largely explained by the married men being freed up to concentrate even more on their careers, due to the efforts of their spouse, as compared to the single unmarried man. In summary, the gap between male and female earnings in the workplace both recent and historical is almost entirely explained by different life choices and not any systemic, overt or organized effort to discriminate against women in general as a class. I know that flies in the face of "conventional wisdom" regarding the narrative that is common on the left, but try reading Sowell's argument (he presents it much better than I can) and looking at his cited sources; it's compelling to say the least.

Yes, but what you get might not be a viable file, especially if it is a database or loop mounted file system.
As little as a month ago I had to help someone who had relied on rsync to "back up" his system, and could not restore mysql.

man 2 fcntl

Or, to make the obligatory joke... Wait, watt?

Easy. 1000 hours. Wait, what?

I like to explain it in terms of humans. A watt is an instantaneous unit of power. It represents a resource that is available to do work at any given point of time. In much the same way, a company has employees. They are resources that are available to do work at any given point in time, and each employee can do roughly a fixed amount of work in a given period of time. If a company has ten employees working during the day, assuming an eight-hour work day, it gets eighty employee-hours of work done. If it needs to get more than that amount of work done, it must either increase the number of employees (the wattage available) or increase the period of time over which it does the work (longer hours).

Sadly, this explanation fails to account for folks who reply that they can also make the machine more efficient so that it does more work per watt—work smarter, not harder, and all that—at which point most people end up working longer hours and fudging the hours on their timecards. But I digress.

... it's not about finding a magic bullet, it's about helping cut back on (not eliminate) the need to use coal or nuclear power.

Only up to the point where all the daytime power needs are covered by solar. Given the slow ramp-up/ramp-down times for nuclear plants, they're pretty much suitable only for providing base load (24x7), so either you're using it all day and all night or you're not using it at all. In other words, solar power, if deployed broadly enough, could make nuclear power economically infeasible.

Why buy now when you can wait six months and buy a controlling stake for less than a burger and some fries?