Laptop charger, phone charger, money to own washing powder to wash clothes. "Toiletry kit" is a cheat, so add: razor, shaving foam, blades, toothpaste, toothbrush, towel, shampoo, shower gel, etc. etc. etc.
He addressed that. Some "things" listed are a collection of parts which are pretty useless if incomplete.
Are we going to enumerate the mechanical components of the computer down to screws, connectors, etc - some of which he could arguably live without? no. At some point we consider a collection of things a single whole thing. A puzzle is moot without all the pieces. Within reason, he's expanding that to include separable components which are functionally useless without other items; a laptop and a charger are pretty useless without each other, to the point that we may as well consider them part of the same thing ... ditto the "toiletry kit", a small bag (well, mine is) containing consumables all of which I need to become presentable each morning, the unified totality of parts becoming apparent if I miss just one of those things for a couple days.
The other interesting & valid selection - or in this case rejection - of "things" are those which he does have but could do without (if inconveniently, like socks) which have zero, even negative, resale value.
It's not a cheat. It's coping with a practical analysis of the problem, defining usable viable limits where others may flippantly disagree.
Because a toiletry kit is a set of [consumable, replaceable] parts, used pretty much all at once (same 20-minute process every day), where each component is not often chosen over an equivalent. I'll go thru a half-dozen shirts throughout the week (and society will object if I stick to just one), but nobody will care if I use the same toothpaste/toothbrush/floss/razor/foam/shampoo/soap/washcloth every day for years (replaced only when used up, and then replaced with the same product).
We have a variety of clothes as separate objects, as they are interchangeable (society objects if I _don't_ swap 'em on a daily basis), and can get by without some because there are others present as replacements.
In support of your point, it's a matter of where the line is drawn as a practical application to the scenario. While the kit may be considered a unit wherein parts really are part of the same non-interchangeable application (well, at least for us Y-chromosome types) and for purposes of this example isn't broken down further, the reverse may be applied. Rather than a given shirt considered a single object, by defined convention it could be considered a part of a complete outfit. Having so few pieces to interchange - say, the dress shirt not an acceptable match to the swim shorts - he could reduce the total count by considering sandals/jeans/polo a single unit as none of that stuff much goes with anything else he has.
To wit: that's just where he drew the line between things forming a unit and things counted separate but used together.
I'd disagree, simply because you could take that to the extreme. Does he own the water he drinks, the air he breathes, the life he lives through? As far as I can see, we're talking strictly in physical items.
His definition of "I count my things as resellable items I would be pissed if someone took." would appear to cover email addresses and blog accounts etc. Maybe not much resale value, but anyone would be 'pissed' if their email account was taken.
We can take that further. If clumps of data that make up a "file" is a possession, what about the thousands of executable and library files that make up his operating system? He may not use the calculator or chess game, but his computer surely comes with that. What about every bit that make those up?
We need a clear line or this gets silly, and I think physical possessions is a clear enough line.
