NeuronautML

Cuba - sponsor of terrorism, hasn't done a single act of terror in generations.

Israel - not a sponsor of terrorism, used pagers and walkie talkies to kill several hundreds of people, some of which literal children.

Yeah, ok US.

If i didn't have a soldering iron, I'd probably grab a diode or resistor leg, snip it just enough to bridge the gap, press it down on the contacts, use super glue to hold it in place on both sides and the middle until it held and hope the glue doesn't block the contacts.

But this is an extremely shoddy solution and i doubt it will last long. You have to hold it firmly in place or the glue will get underneath the component leg. The user can't let it roll around under the finger. I suggest pressing it against the upper side of the contacts in the picture for leverage. Try it out yourself and see if you can do it. Once you verify with a multimeter you get current through, you can apply more super glue on top between the contacts to give it a little more grip, that may make it hold on for longer. Since it's for a low current application I'm betting just the contact surface of the component leg with the solder blobs underneath will be enough and will not overheat, but i would suggest letting it run a bit just to make sure. You can always make it just a smidge longer in order for the component leg to wrap around the blobs to increase the contact surface, in sort of a C shape.

A soldering iron for students can be pretty cheap and I'm only suggesting this alternative so you have some sort of low cost solution that doesn't involve one. Any diode or resistor will do, really, for like 5 cents and superglue for like 2/3€. Or if you want to put it in a kit just send small snips of tin plated, copper clad steel wire, but depending on how many kits you are manufacturing, it might be more cost effective just to use resistor/diode legs harvested from stuff you've got lying around.

And thrown a flashbang into a nearby stroller with a sleeping baby inside.

Hell I'm European and the unwavering support of the genocide in Gaza by Von Der Leyen and other key players in our governments and the brutal crackdown across Europe on pro Palestinian free speech and environmental protesting is making me lose trust in our own governing bodies. I'm with the Global South on this. I'm not proud of what we are accomplishing as of late or the kind of messaging we're putting out on the world. How much genocide is acceptable genocide ? How much protesting crackdown can you do on legitimate issues and still call yourself a free speech country?

I also agree with the arguments put forward regarding the Iraqi invasions. There were no weapons of mass destruction and we should not have been there.

And there are also other issues. The European governments at large seem to have given up on younger generations. How the hell can you even have kids when you're being squeezed this much for basic things like rent and food all across Europe ? How is it that in many places across Europe the youth is being exploited with these unpaid internships just to be allowed a decent job? Seems like most governmental action since covid has been to support the rich and old and neglect the struggling youth. If Europe doesn't want kids, then i won't have kids. That's my protest. Let the rich and old people who get so much solve the fertility issue, I say.

You're correct, my apologies. I was confusing my Middle Eastern history. In my comment, where it reads that the French and British are to blame for the divisions through ethnic and religious lines, it should be the Russians and the British, during their sphere of influence games, which eventually coalesced Afghanistan's borders into the Durand line, with further meddling by the Soviets later on. But the whole comment still maintains pretty much the same sentiment. Nevertheless, thank you for pointing out my mistake and helping me remember it correctly. I will try to do better to reinforce my weaknesses in history knowledge.

I may be misunderstanding the point on your last paragraph, but i wouldn't consider it is an inherent quality of the country, culture or people that prevents stability within the country, but the countless meddling with its affairs by different countries. None of these countries (including the US) have meaningfully attempted to change anything in the country with the purpose to make it more stable. Instead, the changes that have been attempted have been more towards making the country more useful/pliable to the sphere of influence of the country that is occupying/influencing it for purposes other than the country's best interests.

That may be a nature of its geographical location and the importance it had throughout history, but nevertheless i sure hope we will arrive at some point in the future where the country will be able to stabilize and stand on its own and it will never be through the means of the establishment of a puppet government. I believe it's precisely by leaving it alone and providing humanitarian aid that the country will find stability, as previously said.

In 1916 France and the UK create the Sykes-Picot secret agreement with agreement of Russia and Italy to divide the middle east in a way so they would never be able to pose any threat and could be easily manipulated into their spheres of influence, by cutting through areas of ethnic and religious affiliations.

108 years later on Lemmy "Afghanistan actively rejects civilization". It's just unfair to say such a thing when so many civilizations have contributed so much to ensure Afghanistan would never be able to be politically and economically stable.

If anything, everyone should stop sending soldiers to Afghanistan and simply support them humanitarily throughout the long road of recovery ahead of them from what has been done to them for the last 100 years. Ideally, France and the UK should be bearing the brunt of the cost of that humanitarian effort, but in practice, it's difficult to pin the blame on modern day France and UK of their forefathers' sins.

I'm thinking a terrorist attack of this magnitude with the amount of collateral casualties it had will have international implications that reach far beyond convincing Hezbollah from escalating into a war, if it's actually going to achieve that at all. We're talking about a terrorist group, not an army. Personally i think this will probably just delay it and strengthen their resolve to actually go to war and be even more cruel. Terror groups thrive in terror conditions. The strongest military force on the world couldn't make a dent in terrorist groups operating in the middle east. Peace and stability, however, destroy terror groups.

I'm pretty sure everyone has realized that further atrocities are not the way out of this war. I just hope the belligerent parties can realize it faster and start coming to terms that they will have to share the land and make concessions. Until then i guess we'll keep seeing innocents die for motivations that make less sense each time, like Fatima Abdullah, who was just 9.

I wasn't necessarily thinking the law would protect the person who did this, but pondering if the existence of that legal framework does not create the impression that this is acceptable, even though it isn't and that's not what the law is.

And also, i do understand this isn't applied everywhere in the US, but to me I see the US as a country. As a foreigner it's probably very unlikely I'm going to refer to it as the law from Connecticut or whatever. I just know this law exists in the US and to be fair I'm not really that interested in knowing specifically where and the nuances of state to state legislation.

But nevertheless i thank you for clarifying the difference between Stand your ground and Castle doctrine and reminding me that it's not a national thing.

This is why stand your ground laws can't realistically exist in places that aren't sparsely populated. Because someone will read "defend your property and life with force if necessary" as "act as a raging lunatic and attempt to shoot anyone who comes at the door because it's legal to do so if you claim you were defending your property, even though there was no indication of actual imminent danger to property or people".

In my country we don't have stand your ground laws. You can only defend yourself in case of an attack, but not drive away a thief. You're supposed to run and call the police, but I keep wondering if a legal framework like the US where you weren't legally punished for attacking a thief in your house wouldn't be fairer but then there's news like this.