This "buffer zone" demand is much older than 30+ years. Putin wants another Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to invade his neighbors, to be called 'Putin the Conqueror'. Everything we see are his ambitions to rewrite history. He won't resort to nukes because then there is a risk of no one reading the history of the new glorious Russian empire by Putin the Conqueror, and that's against his life goals.
Take a random group of students from the general population and one of those examples (Edit: or any single given example whatsoeve). Turns out 95% are not really interested.
Edit 2: The teacher probably gave some example from biology or something that you didn't care about and therefore forgot about it.
The core skill of the teacher lies in recognizing the interests of the pupil and then working on refining those skills so that the pupil can use those skills for at least their betterment, if not the society.
And that is one of the toughest things to get right. Children are extremely curious, that's how they learn and master absolutely anything including arts, dancing, music, history, skating, catching insects, street smarts etc. It's on us as teachers to not let that curiosity wither into nothingness.
What makes you think so? I quickly skimmed through and found nothing of the sort.
Edit: My take home message was that there is an equivalent higher order formulation which allows more structure and might be theoretically interesting. Usually higher order formulations are numerically more challenging.
It is important for the children to learn about different feelings, their control, and so on. This is not an excuse to use anger to control kids but I think you shouldn't avoid it at all costs or you will burn out or lose faith in humanity. It's not binary, angry or not angry, because there is a full range of emotions between the two end points. For example, there are few things that make me angry anymore but my older child hitting the younger one to hurt him, e.g., to revenge something trivial such as stealing a toy, which has unfortunately happened once or twice, makes my blood boil and I am happy to make it clear that there is a limit to my (and everyone else's) tolerance. As a sane person you then feel bad about losing your temper. Dealing with difficult emotions and explaining them is part of raising children.
I suspect that if someone is in a position where they are compelled to purchase and use the proprietary version and not the free (and available) version, they already lack most software freedoms. Probably several other, more important, freedoms as well.
Although I agree, notice that the only act the GPL compels someone to do is to hand over the source code with the program.
MIT doesn't give people a freedom to restrict because that isn't a freedom. The restriction is always done by the legal system. The GPL is just an attempt to stop the legal system from interfering in the market to restrict user freedom. So both licenses are actually communicating to a 3rd party (a judge) under what circumstances they should restrict the freedom of others. GPL says to stay out of it as long as people are sharing their source code and MIT says get involved sometimes/its complicated.
It isn't a practical difference, but it is philosophically important. The amount of personal freedom both licenses give is technically quite similar.
MIT doesn’t give anyone the ability to restrict the freedom of others. When you fork a project and use a difference licence for it, the original project remains under MIT.
I force my students to turn in handwritten math homework (two problems per week), mainly because I want them to practice for the exam and we don't have another system scaling (easily) up to 300+ exam goers. Recently I have seen more discussion on the benefits of handwriting and I wonder if there is something more to argue for the practice...
