The fact that me pointing out why your accusing someone else of moving the goalpost isn’t true and a mistake on your part is met by you immediately trying to make me disprove a claim you haven’t even made explicitly yet, makes me think this will go nowhere regardless of anything I might say.
Will you acknowledge your mistake and move forward? If so I’m open to discussing it further, but if you continue to avoid the points made as if to never acknowledge when you are wrong then I’m not going to bother.

Fascist regimes

^ Right here is where they specified that they weren’t talking about all authoritarian societies but a subset.
If you want to argue that your list is all fascist countries then do that, but they did not move any goalposts by correcting you after giving what you labeled authoritarian countries instead of fascist ones specifically.

I’ve used it a lot for reports when I went to university, but for short notes I would prefer markdown and for a few pages or documents where formatting is trivial I still find it easier to use LibreOffice or word. I find it likely that most high schoolers would find it easier to use word for any document than LaTeX which they probably have never heard of and would be unable to get support for unlike word which is commonly provided by the school. So while understand where you are coming from, I don’t think the students are in a situation where that would be a plausible solution. Especially due to the many pitfalls and the learning curve you have to get through for using LaTeX as efficiently and for as complex formatting as they already know how to do in word. LaTeX has a way higher ceiling of quality, but the floor is also much lower for those new to it and without the drive to learn it.

Word specifically is not required, but electronic hand in is. If it works the same as when I studied at that level (I am a Dane) you simply hand in a pdf file, but how it is made doesn’t matter. A web interface to write in was never a thing throughout my education though.

While I agree with you that LaTeX is an impressive tool, I would not choose it for an exam whith a short duration. It is great, but for short documents that should be written quickly, I don’t think it’s the best tool.

A single person experiencing an error is bad luck and may go through an apeals process. Half a class experiencing the same error jeopardizes the legitimacy of the exam for enough students that they decided to handle it collectively. It may be a third party tool but it is one they are expected to use which changes things. Had it been a few students using libre office they would probably be out of luck as they would have used non standard software.

Another important note is that many exams now require digitally handing in the assignment, so the only alternative to writing the assignment in a text editor would likely have been to scan a handwritten one and convert it to pdf, if that was even allowed. So while particular hardware and software isn’t required, the limitations of the exam makes it impossible to completly avoid errors such as these.

Just a note to avoid some confusion some people may have: gymnasium in denmark is roughly the same as high schools in the US. While I’m sure the problem also affects university students, the focus of this article is on the high school students specifically.

The theology may have evolved, but to say they were never Christians would be unjustified, even if I agreed they had stopped being Christians due to this.
I do however not think that is the case either. I agree that their veneration for Trump often becomes pretty much worship. That however doesn’t mean they aren’t Christian. He seems to take a status in their theology ranging from a saint-like figure to prophet and even the second coming of Jesus. Christians started out as a jewish sect and only over time became a distinct religion. I think this Trump worship is similarly a Christian sect that could potentially become a destinct religion. I just haven’t been convinced it has happened yet.

Why would you claim them not to be Christians? They seem very clearly Christian to me. I can’t really see a non “no true scotsman” reason to say they aren’t, and especially that they never was.

Sure, I’m not arguing whether they are respecting the agreement, just whether the software would be much of a factor if any in that decision.

I can’t tell if this is bait with an aptly named account or a genuine mistake. In case it’s the latter: they wouldn’t necessarily have to develop two copies of the software. There are multiple ways of making the same software work for both without spying on the corporate customers. One of the simplest is called a feature flag and is in essence just a value that tells the software if it should use a particular feature or not. Whether or not they spy on corporate users is not a question of the technology, but rather their integrity and fear of getting caught.

I don’t expect them to argue against him inciting an insurrection. I think they will argue that the office of the president isn’t a civil office of the United States as laid out in the constitution, as has been a common legal argument brought forth as of late. So they will probably have to argue that the rattifiers of the ammendment were so worried about insurrectionists taking over government that they wanted to prevent it, but not enough they thought the presidency should be barred to insurrectionists.

Obsidian is a free* notetaking tool similar to one note and such. It uses markdown for formatting and offers good extension support.

I’ve used it for free for about a year and I’m pretty happy with it.

*Some services are offered only for paid users, I think it’s only online storage /sync but I’m not sure.

Satanism stems from an enlightenment era conception of Satan, not the medieval. In the satanic temple’s case they also adopt some of the more classic imagery as a way to push against Christianity when it oversteps its bounds. The more grotesque image of satan eorks perfectly for this as it’s much easier to show the hypocrisy with than any other I’ve encountered.

Side note: as far as i know, god is the only character in the bible that already has, and has promised to again destroy the world. Satan (which translates to the accuser or adversary) has mostly just questioned god and tested peoples faith. So cutting away the popular notions from centuries later actually puts satan in a much more favorable light.