It used to be a thing in India, I have read, that people would want to associate themselves with a prestigious university, even if they dropped out. It would be written like this (made-up example):

B.A. Political Science, Bangalore University (failed)

In Canada, I have to report my (small) self-employment income.

The other thing I have to do is enter deductions like moving expenses, tuition, charitable donations, medical expenses, etc., which the government doesn't have direct access to.

I went to their website. They have four things in their online shop, and all are "sold out" (never available?). Looks cool, but are they actually producing anything?

Which website? I didn't see anything at https://www.unspun.io/ and the article made it sound like Walmart would be selling their clothes later this year.

As far as I can see, the cameras are not live. Timestamps on the video seem to be off by many hours (12 hours for a camera in Taiwan, 1:40 for a camera in Calgary, 15:30 for a camera in Wisconsin).

Not complaining, just noting in case anyone is hoping for live feeds.

They're definitely live, unless it's a honeypot just looping recorded video.

They're last recorded snapshots, not live feeds.

Not really related, but worth repeating: there's an old saying, "A gentleman is one who knows how to play the accordion, but doesn't".

When I was a volunteer in Africa, my school's English teacher was furious because none of the students in his class had done the homework. His solution: to bring them into the staff room one by one, have them hold their hands in a "chef's kiss", fingertips pointing up. He then whacked their fingertips ten times with a short wooden rod (laughing as he delivered the final blow, "and one for Caesar!).

These were tough, hardworking teenagers, but very few of them were not in tears when they stumbled out of the room.

The next day we found out that he had forgotten to assign the homework.

So why should corporal punishment ever be considered appropriate?

(I'm not arguing with you, but agreeing with you.)

Behavior like this is why I unironically have lost the mythos of "teachers are good for society" as default thinking. I get why Mao/Pol Pot/Communists through history lined them up against walls.

Most, even in America, are little tyrants who has entirely far too much power to pick and choose the winners and losers of society. A single bad teacher acts like a whole bucket of crabs pulling down on soon-to-be-succesful youth.

lol, standard practice in schools where I grew up, though not with a wooden rod but the wooden back of the blackboard duster.

I don't think this is something to laugh at. Whether or not you think it's necessary or a proper method of punishment, it isn't funny.

It was always funny to us as kids, and we often laughed at the poor bugger who had earned that punishment (and were laughed at when it was us).

Our teachers didn't abuse us like some do in other societies, with extra homework and detention. We new the rules and punishment for breaking them, and made choices accordingly. Wonderful teachers who I remember fondly decades later, though some of them have passed on.

I would suspect that the vast majority of bullying ends when the victim is able to escape from the bully -- by changing schools, etc.

We hear about victims snapping and beating up their bullies because that makes a good story. How about victims who snap but then are beaten up (because the bullies are often bigger and more used to violence) even more? Probably much more common.

That's a fair point. The challenge is that a lot of the time, it's hard to escape in that way. The ideal would be that a bully is expelled or forced to change schools to get their victims away from them, but the system seems very reluctant to do that. Same with letting the victims find a new school to replace the old one.

It works really well for bullying in workplaces and communities though.

And true, the bully might win. But the thing is that it puts the victim from an easy target to a slightly harder target, and a bully may decide it's not worth the hassle/risk when others aren't going to fight back at all. It's like that old joke about outrunning a bear; you're not trying to outrun the bear, you're trying to outrun the people next to you. Or perhaps the old adage about home burglaries. A lock won't stop a determined thief, but they'd usually rather find an easy to break into house than go through the effort of defeating a security system.

> such cases were easily resolved

Hah!

In any case, it is a curious argument that, in order to show that stronger people should not hurt weaker people, you think it's okay for stronger people to hurt weaker people.

Yeah. Instead of teaching school bullies to respect others, we are reinforcing the value of power dynamics, where the one in power defines the rules, and the weak must accept and suffer.

That’s called training a person to live in the real world and not be a criminal.

> it is a curious argument that, in order to show that stronger people should not hurt weaker people, you think it's okay for stronger people to hurt weaker people

Not curious at all. Ingrains the lesson that, should you feel inclined to abuse your strength, there is always someone stronger. That's a clear lesson that even works on psychopaths who otherwise feel no remorse and cannot be influenced by other means.

Conversely, it also ingrains the lesson that it is ok to abuse anyone weaker than you A) if you know you can get away with it (because someone stronger is not always around/aware/inclined to intervene), or B) because that is just normal / the way the world is.

I don't see how that follows. In an environment in which physical correction has no reason, and is doled out unfairly (as with alcoholic parents), then sure, someone would ingrain the idea that the world is callous and unfair and they should get theirs at the expense of others if they can. If they instead only experience physical correction due to specific reasons that are deemed far outside the bounds of acceptable (such as inflicting violence on others), that's a whole different lesson.

You are correct (source: I was a volunteer in Lesotho many moons ago).

If you enjoy The X-Files, you really should check out Millennium, by the same creator (Chris Carter) and broadcast at roughly the same time.

It's very intense, with an Emmy-deserving performance by star Lance Henriksen (whom you may remember from the movie Aliens). It mixes Christian theology and eschatology, mythology, horror, and serial killers, leavened with delightful humour.

The first season is mostly "serial killer of the week", but is important to establish the characters and long-running story arcs.

The second season is a delight, with some of the best writing of any TV show I know, and a lot of complex situations with no easy answers.

The third season changed (and cheapened) everything, and is only worth watching for completists.