Very true, any recommendations that you enjoy? For the most part as I stated it's useful for certain topics that come up when someone's discussing some woowoo, it's hard for them to sit down and go through a whole course when the context of what they're discussing doesn't come up. There's also the problem of being slightly educated in a topic but then falling down a rabbit hole thinking it's all legit (quantum subject matter seems to be particularly susceptible).

Can you recommend any good soldering gear for an intermediate level? I’ve done plenty of soldering over the years but have always used crappy low end products. It’s always been a struggle to properly do a clean-true solder (not just heating the solder like I see everywhere) even though I try to meticulously maintain my equipment. I’m hoping that it’s just the equipment I use and a higher end one will make things a breeze like I see the professional’s use.

It’s really a pain in my ass. On top of maintaining the equipment I have whole setups I’ve constructed to hold wires and equipment snugly so I can properly apply heat. I purchased a high temp kit but it’s cheap as well and still sometimes run into the same problem, with the smaller components and projects though I’m afraid to use it and overheat something that can’t handle it.

It would explain my dentist. Definitely an expensive hobby with what I get charged.

I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.

Personally this feels like a contradiction.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).

Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.

I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,

The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.

Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?

The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).

Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?

For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?

If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.

I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.

Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.

Eventually they might be concerned with our mental well being and find simple tasks we can do to keep ourselves busy. To make it more efficient they could construct indoor spaces where we can be with other pet-humans doing tasks until they’re ready for us to return to our cages.

Are there any personal thoughts or insights about the article you wish to share?

Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.

I’ll have to take your word on the interviews, I’m open to other perspectives which is why I initiated this dialogue with stating my confusion. I’m still not seeing the connections that I initially confronted. As you stated, the questions are usually answered and administered from top-down (department, district, then principal). I’m not sure on what effectiveness a “skilled” principal could have when the district is not prepared, though I could see a case for an unskilled principal not instituting/following change as instructed.

All of the questions you’ve brought up are valid whether there is a pandemic or not (which is why I specified your pandemic remark). When considering any fairness, edge cases will always be problems that need to be addressed. I agree the situation of overworking was exacerbated during the pandemic but existed long before that as funding and support systems have been slowly dwindled away.

I’m not sure on what the crux of this debate is but I feel like the light has been shifted from “education responsibility” to “pandemic bad/we need X”. I believe education has been getting the short straw for decades and the pandemic was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. A decent principal or administration assessing the health scenarios you presented would not fix the broken system. Schools being all paper based, the overworking of staff, students lack of reliable internet, not having a pre-pandemic plan ready (it’s been known for a long time that it was a problem to arise soon), all of these are problems that needed to be addressed a long time ago. Most early education schools only have one I.T. person and usually doubles their role in another form (teaching classes as well).

I feel like teaching is chaotic as a whole regardless of the situation society faces. Hearing about how the pandemic was the root cause of the problem just sounds disingenuous and completely glosses over the need for distant education to be an effective tool for future students. Teachers should be available to help explain and instruct how to fill out health forms, just like tax forms and other important documentation that should be covered at some point in a students career. Classes should be hybrid, teachers should be familiar and take supplemental training for the new tech they are using. All of this should be countered with support so nothing is “added on” to the workload. Again, these aren’t problems that were cleared up when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. Plenty of teachers are still on the edge of bailing as the system continues to decline.

This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.

I’m not really understanding this comment. Teaching during the pandemic was chaotic, yes. I don’t think a skilled or unskilled principal made the difference for a lot of people (besides some mental support and I’m assuming you’re referring to the position of principal). There were attendance rules for the districts around my area, grades were calculated regularly like before (not sure what you mean by “fair”), and the curriculum was maintained the same so I’m not sure where the ton of extra work was coming from.

This is all anecdotal from my perspective so if you had a school district that failed to properly follow protocol I apologize and sympathize with the situation you were in. I think most of the problem was how we transitioned with such a drastic change. Resources weren’t properly reinvested, proper training support for educators wasn’t given, and the students weren’t prepared in a meaningful way for the shift.

In this day and age of online training though, for future employment, it could’ve been something that better situated students to handle obstacles they may encounter in the future (what school is suppose to prepare us for). Just looking at the stats for online education show more than 1/4 of all students are engaged in a form of distant learning. This is going to be something that only increases over time so we should be better prepared as a society to be flexible with transitions like WFH, etc. (source source)

You:

the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

Response:

the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin

You:

lmao, so?

That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.

Now the goal post has been moved to WhY?!? were we there? Throw up some more pretty images to explain the situation please.

person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”

Where is here? The World News community? The only one I see whining is the pickle. Is this a small step away from saying people should go back from where they came from and leave this social space you’ve claimed as your own? IDK wtf you’re thinking coming into someone else’s post, refuting verified evidence, then proclaiming hate because its context makes the US look subpar. What’s your point, you love the US, why come on here and have to ignorantly shout it?

I was simply replying what I thought the OP meant since no one was responding to the “Why?”. I do not condone or agree with the original unpopular opinion, but it’s nice to see that downvotes continue to be used for agreeing/disagreeing with statements instead of their intended usage.

I think it’s something along the same vein as an overweight fitness instructor. I think it’s an innate requisite that if someone is presenting as a professional, that has instructions for us to follow, that they at least have the appearance of following their own guidelines.