FriendOfDeSoto

Great headline

You are making assumptions here. Twenty-something year olds are allowed to date anyone older they like, the only restrictions that apply go the other way age-wise. And dating older people doesn't automatically lead to self-destruction. So what's your point?

You have to phrase it as a question to get the money. When you buzz in you get something odd like 7 seconds to answer the question. If you just say "Eiffel Tower" then Ken Jennings will now probably just stare at you expectingly to rephrase your reply in that time. I think in the past Alex Trebek may have prompted candidates to rephrase their non-question answers but I haven't seen that happening in a while (but I don't watch it that regularly either so 🧂).

The whole point of the show is that the standard quiz show mechanic question->answer gets put on its head. The clue on the wall is the answer and the candidates have to provide a question it answers.

Since you referenced "trash mods" on reddit in this thread: I have a feeling your post may also fall foul of forum rules here. There is a question in it but most of the post isn't about that. So don't be surprised if a non-trashy lemmy mod comes in to mod it away.

This is not criticism; I feel very similarly about the big picture to what you wrote. Trump is not a Mao lover. He would have to know who that was first. And I think communist Chinese history is one of his many blank spots.

Code of Honor, Profit & Lace, Sub Rosa, ...

Don't listen to the critics on the internet. If you're not dying soon, watch it all. It's Trek. It's roughly 60% great, 30% mediocre to aged poorly, and 10% let's never talk about it again.

I would go in rough order of release because they do like harkening back to stuff. Actually rewatching TOS will be good for SNW. And Disco S2 is its backdoor pilot.

I don't think so, I have witnessed so.

My word choices have given you the impression of a scheming Machiavellian teacher who reenacts the Spanish Inquisition on the boy until his classmates pelt him to death with rotten eggs. That's on me, it's not what I meant. I think I've added enough clarification in this thread at this point. So I won't go into it again.

The opinion of one teacher, one that due to the question they asked initially and the forum they asked it in, and a few down votes are, I feel, not enough to call my argument dumb. Never mind the more personal attack that followed. Tackle the ball, not the player. If you want me to change my mind, that is.

There is a whole field of study for this, pedagogy. I am sure the first chapter of the book isn't "kids are ruthless. The end." I remain unconvinced that my approach, where my suggestion was preconditioned on many things to have happened first, is the worst one until I hear something that isn't that or teetering on the edge of name calling.

It's an enumeration of if-phrases. "If the parents don't support the teacher" is just the first condition of many. And some things you may have to infer, like if the teacher had to talk to the parents and got cold shouldered, I think you can presume the teacher has already talked to the student too. I'm not gonna go as far as saying my post was immaculately written and presented. I would go as far as saying the options presented were at the bottom of the list. No support from the parents, maybe not even school leadership, cannot use bitter taste spray for insurance reasons, etc.

If a teacher telling a kid to get their feet off the table, to stop shooting spit wads at the row in front of them, to stop rocking back their chair because they might tip over and fall - if all these situations are okay for a teacher to say out loud in front of the class: "Kevin, stop it!" - and I think they are - then telling the kid not to chew on communally shared erasers is no different. Claiming this will immediately lead to bullying or just the threat that it might do is to an extent quixotic to me. If teachers will not assert their authority ever for fear of what the chaos kids will do, they might as well pack it in then.

Your office comparisons are insignificant here. Elementary school is a different sport entirely. There is a difference between coworkers sharing an office hierarchy and the power, responsibility, and maturity differential students/teacher, never mind the fact that offices shouldn't employ 9yos.

OP has weighed in against the suggestion anyway. I'll defer to them because they know more about this case than you or I.

You have inadvertently hit the nail on the head. They just call it socialism. There are several shades of poverty, for different reasons. One shade is due to the fact that a lot of services, like welfare, education, and medical, are only available to you in your hometown, probably the one you were born in. But if you have migrated from bf nowhere Gansu province to a big city where the jobs are, you rid yourself of that safety net. It's hard/costly to change this hometown registration so most don't and become quasi undocumented workers in their own country. And they are the ones who work insane hours in shitty and dangerous work conditions and it's then who will look for anything to save a yuan.

It's been a while since I've been to China. But even in the 2000s it was not uncommon to have to pay for toilet paper at a vending machine. Not at all public facilities but the more local you went, the fewer tourists would be there, the more this happens. So getting roll for watching an ad is an improvement.

And as the article points out, they cannot have nice things, i.e. free sandpaper toilet roll, because people will just steal it. I feel like this becomes exponentially less dystopian when you frame it as you can either have no paper at all or watch the ad/pay for it.

And there is another cultural difference. The Chinese are more like the Romans when it comes to these bodily functions. Much more willing to take care of it communally or at a hole in the ground surrounded by a thigh high "modesty" barrier. So asking an attendant for extra roll is something that the majority of Chinese would have less of a problem with, I think.