tw85

You're just piling lie on lie at this point.

A coup attempt with no weapons and no violence. How does that work exactly? The foreign money angle has been debunked by none other than the RCMP and CSIS. Nice CBC talking point though.

The freedom convoy has absolutely correct that the jab mandates and lockdowns were far beyond their sell by date, as the issue had been heavily politicized for the sake of Trudeau trying to secure a majority.

And why, pray tell, is that the case? Because the Liberal government has created a terrible environment for Canadian businesses over the last 11 years, ballooning the size of the public service and the amount of regulations and bureaucratic oversight, as well as trying to pick winners by handing out subsidies to all the wrong companies in service of their ideological agenda. They would rather companies fail than succeed without their "help". That, and they've done everything in their power to keep the housing bubble juiced instead of allowing an RE correction. But hey, running the country into the ground while trying to blame everything on the orange man gets you elected, so I don't expect any course correction.

There would of course be much more of a public uproar about C-22 and the steady diet of online censorship and surveillance bills served up over the last 6 years if they were being pushed by a Conservative government. But it's the Liberals, and they get a free pass from mainstream media who are subsidized handsomely for their complicity.

If anyone believes the real intent behind this authoritarian legislation is to protect the kids or crack down on organized crime or to keep the public safe, I have a bridge to sell you. This is an administration that did away with mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes, considers pedophilia to be a minor offence, allow repeat violent offenders out on bail repeatedly, refuses to convict migrants if it might impact their chances of obtaining citizenship, has allowed thousands of terrorists to enter the country with minimal vetting, and openly tolerates election interference from China. Public safety is far, far down the list of their priorities. They are very thirsty to silence their online detractors, however.

One of reasons I think people who don't have training in it struggle with soldering is Hollywood's depiction of it. You typically see the actor make a quick stabbing motion with the soldering iron, as if wielding a knife. The solder will already be held against the wire or PCB pad, and in comes the stab. It's almost as comically bad as Hollywood's depictions of computer 'hacking'.

Proper order of operations:

(1) soldering iron to metal first to heat up the wire / pad / pin

(2) apply solder at junction of soldering iron and wire / pad / pin

(3) remove solder

(4) remove iron

And the most important basic tip is to make sure you have the appropriate soldering iron tip for the job. Pointy tips intended for precision work don't provide enough heat transfer for soldering larger pads or wires.

If that justification held up, the BBC would have no trouble staying afloat through voluntary subscription fees, pay to watch content and advertising revenue. Instead, they harass anyone who doesn't pony up the license fee and put the onus on them to prove they aren't in violation.

This thread is quite eye opening. A lot of comments bemoaning the lack of agreement on what constitutes bias, mixed with claims the BBC is right wing and even a Nigel Farage fluffer (that's a howler). I didn't see anyone mention that, just a couple months back, two very high profile BBCers were forced to resign over the doctoring of Trump's Jan. 6 speech to completely alter its meaning. That simply doesn't happen unless it's a very serious scandal.

You're very quick to throw around unsubstantiated accusations of spreading misinformation while providing nothing of substance to back it up. Pounding on the keys forcefully doesn't carry an argument. Come back when your temper tantrum subsides.

It doesn't help that the background of most Ars' writers was some variant of "former IT pro", which is almost guaranteed to mean they're unqualified to write with nuance and depth about serious technical topics. So you have guys like Jon Brodkin pumping out total nonsense about the latest wireless communications breakthroughs (just one example I remember) while 99% of the audience has no clue and won't check them on it.

I wonder if it has something to do with an incident years ago in which one of Ars' senior reporters (Peter Bright) was arrested and convicted for child enticement. Ars eventually allowed one of their readers to write a forum article about it, but they didn't write one themselves at the time. Some people defended this course of non-action by saying it was the sensible thing to do because his colleagues could become witnesses in the trial.

It seems people have a rather short memory when it comes to twitter. When it was still run by Jack Dorsey, CP was abundant on twitter and there was little effort to tamp down on it. After Musk bought the platform, he and Dorsey had a public argument in which Dorsey denied the scale of the problem or that old twitter was aware of it and had shown indifference. But Musk actually did take tangible steps to clean it up and many accounts were banned. It's curious that there wasn't nearly the same level of outrage from the morally righteous HN crowd towards Mr. Dorsey back then as there is in this thread.