Alabaster_Mango

You have to completely tear up the road for those usually, and that takes more time and money. They might have needed to do something similar for these, but it almost looks like they're placed there. The guy at the end did say they're looking into planters at least.

Totally misread that as "Transfems" aren't optional. I always thought transfems were more into cybersecurity anyway.

Probably the Ouya....

Somehow as a society we've come up with a real black and white view of disability. You're either able-bodied or completely disabled, no in between. This does not match reality. Many wheelchair users can stand and walk in a limited capacity, for example.

Unfortunately this leads to misinformed people casting moral judgments upon disabled individuals who don't act "disabled enough". Hopefully we get over that misconception some day.

@machine2918@lemmy.world here are some links for that kind of thing:

CSI929D-II
Amazon option 1
Amazon option 2

Blind != No Sight. It's possible they have low vision. They do mention an assistive magnifier in a comment on that post. Still more challenging than a fully-sighted individual, and would take a lot of practice. All too often though people assume blind means no sight at all.

Jigs are going to be your friend. I'd also recommend a good articulated PCB vice. I've seen some 3D printed ones, or you can buy a Panavise if you're a millionaire.

An easy-ish way to solder one-handed would be to use stencils and solder paste. The paste can hold components in place (weakly tho) and you can melt the solder either with a standard iron, hot air reflow iron, or even a soldering hotplate or oven. The hotplate and oven will be limiting though because it will reflow the entire board and will more or less limit you to single sided component layouts.

Alternatively I have used this goofy grip in the past. It takes a lot of dexterity though!

How am I in a magical fairy land?

You are mistaken. I am not defending my "silliness". I am attacking your bad arguments. Now your turning tail while also trying to paint me in a bad light. That is cool, and you're entitled to do that. None of this matters after all. If you do want to stick around then I am game for a discussion.

I feel like you've missed something along the way which I will try to spell out here: I never said that cookies were better than coffee.

Here is a paraphrased summary of the discussion so far:
Me - Opining that glorifying coffee to children isn't any better than glorifying cookies.
You - Claiming that coffee is essentially a health drink and cookies are junk food.
Me - Calling your argument disingenuous because it compares the best-case coffee to the worst-case cookies.
You - Restating that coffee is healthy and all cookies are unhealthy, save for an imaginary disgusting cookie.
Me - Restating my initial argument and listing my issues with your arguments so far.
You - An attempt to insult me maybe, and also an attempted (or successful) getaway?

And now we're here. Ever since your first comment I've been trying to have a discussion about your blanket claims that coffee is healthy and cookies are unhealthy. I'm not trying to say cookies are better than coffee, or coffee is worse than cookies. I've been trying to convey to you that I find your blanket statement to be a bad argument.

You never clarified what type of coffee beverage you were referring to as a health drink. Based on the context I've been assuming just a straight black coffee or espresso. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. When it comes to cookies though you've been exclusively referencing junk food cookies high in processed sugar. Yes, I agree that a black coffee is going to be less detrimental to your health than a serving of Oreos. But if those are your only points of comparison then it is an unfair comparison to make. I can easily go the other way and compare a serving of homemade low/no sugar whole-wheat oatmeal raisin cookies to a Starbucks iced latte or Tim Horton's double-double. Does that make coffee the villain? No. Both arguments are bad because they skew the reference samples to fit the narrative that the arguer is trying to push.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think comparing only junk food cookies to a specific preparation method of coffee is a bad comparison. Using that comparison as the basis of your argument only weakens your stance. Throwing in a straw man and some vague ad hominem only weakens your stance further.

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. You can live your best life and take from this discussion what you will, I can't stop you nor do I want to. I sure would like to clear up some misunderstandings here, but it is what it is.

Edit: Some light formatting.

Not totally sure what you’re on about in para #1

I will attempt again. You said coffee is essentially a health drink, and better by every metric you can think of. The problem I have is you are comparing coffee that is specifically without "a bunch of refined sugar and heavy creme" to "cookies which are literal junk food by their processed sugar, processed flour, and whatever else". You've picked the best version of coffee and the worst version of cookies. That is not a fair comparison, and why I thought your first comment was disingenuous. That is what I was saying in paragraph 1 of my above comment.

Maybe “healthy” in terms of mindset, but in actual practice? Almost always a highly-refined food with little health benefit.

This is a wild assumption that you have made up, and you have once again cherry-picked a bad example of cookies and used it as a stand-in for all cookies. I said cookie recipes, as in you're making them at home. You can put refined sugar in if you want, or keep it out if you want. It is up to whoever is making them, and there are plenty of healthy recipe options.

you could make a ‘cookie’ out of compressed, unrefined plant matter and quality-protein material that would taste not unlike fish food

This is textbook straw manning yo. You've conjured up a weak argument out of thin air and attacked that as if I've been advocating for your fish food cookies. Do better.

Anyway, if you’re still in doubt, here’s a good index to a bunch of modern studies

I've literally never refuted any health benefits about coffee in any of these comments. I'm saying the issues you have with cookies also apply to coffee drinks. You've simply ignored the fact that many people consume unhealthy coffee beverages because that doesn't fit your argument.

Coffee-pilled out here defending the brew (/s just in case).

I find your claim that coffee is essentially a health drink a bit disingenuous. The bean water itself can have some benefits, sure, but as you've admitted the healthiness comes down to preparation. Comparing a hyper-specific set of one argument to a broad spectrum of the opposing idea isn't exactly fair play. Especially considering Sesame Street aged coffee drinkers probably wouldn't be taking it black.

You can 100% find healthy cookie recipes, but I wouldn't go so far as to say cookies are a health snack. I'm willing to bet that most cookies being consumed in North America are high in sugar. I am also willing to bet that most coffee beverages being consumed in North America are high in sugar. So I still don't think glorifying coffee is any better.

He's got the good mods