I like you.

That depends on which humans and where. There are still plenty of tribes that live in areas where vegetation simply does not support their population. Luckily, humans evolved to be feed on more things than most things on the planet. We can eat plants, fungi, bugs, fish, etc.

So you're right. Humans don't need to kill animals. We can survive by killing just about any living thing on this planet. We can even eat things that would otherwise be super toxic to us by learning how to cook it, peel it, or skin it.

I'm a proficient software engineer and have the financial means to leave. I'm staying. 100%. This isn't a fight we can run from. If the US falls to fascism, there's a lot more damage we can expect around the world.

The plan is to increase the rhetoric and efforts already in place, but hopefully with more participation, as people (hopefully) slowly wake up to reality.

I had a buddy once in a previous job who didn't vote in 2016. His stance was that the system was "working as intended", and voting was equivalent to condoning the system. Not voting was his way of exercising his freedom of speech. I disagreed with his logic but I understood, mainly because I couldn't verbalize a valid and logical counterargument. Today I can.

My buddy was right. The system is working as intended. But you can't say that without also stating that, at our best, more than ⅓ of eligible voters don't vote. Couple that with a system meant to disadvantage large populations, and, yeah, the system is working as intended. I believe that our best option is to stay and fight by being politically active and encouraging others to do the same.

I also do believe in our fellow man. Trump has plenty of supporters, but I honestly believe they're outnumbered and endangered. This doesn't make them less dangerous. Probably moreso tbh. And even though they're outnumbered, the only way to truly push forward is to keep up the fight and not underestimate them. We need to be louder, fight harder, and make our voices heard when it counts. ie, vote.

The bottom half is proof of why the top half was a bad idea.

Critical success and failure has never applied to skills. It was only ever in the rules for attack rolls and (in 5e) death saving throws. Critical success and failure in skill checks is probably an example of the Mandela Effect. Anyway, for the above reasons I don't use them as such. However, on nat 20s I might provide a "path for success" where one may not otherwise have been possible. But it's never a given. More of an opportunity for roleplay.