hexi
That's all very vague, what specifically do you think people wouldn't know from online work?
Someone studying math online could be speaking to many more people through video calls, online forums, and get exposure to many professors through different videos.
You can ask "why am I learning this?" during an online class, and in-person work can be textbook heavy.
If there's something specific people need to know, it should be tested for. The vagueness around what problems online courses have seems to be an excuse to preserve a system that is inaccessible to the majority of the population. Only about 40% of the population ever gets a bachelor's, and many of those are online already.
It's beside the point whether you like it personally.
If someone was able to pass advanced math tests, does it matter how they learned it?
Why should it count for less because they did it online, so long as they did understand the concepts in the end?
Which you can still do with online classes.
Math can be easily tested, if they can pass a calculus and algebra test that is comprehensive, why would I care how they learned it?
Medical professions have hands-on training that can't be replaced online.
You can get a teaching degree or an engineering entirely online, do you think those are not legitimate?
If someone can pass a calculus test after watching YouTube videos and doing practice tests, why should that count for anything less than someone who got the same score on a test from in-person courses?
Remote learning became a lot more common during COVID, like it or not, it's becoming normal. Unfortunately, test scores only count if you pay a lot for those courses. Free MOOCs teaching and testing the same content will not count, even if afterwards the people passing can demonstrate the same exact knowledge.
Colleges act like Scientology in the states. Equating education with how much money you've handed them.
Meanwhile anything can be learned online, but it counts for nothing because corporations treat purchases credentials as the only legitimate form of "education".
Manjaro is arch with a more user-friendly installer.
A lot of people prefer the simple flat themeing of Manjaro over windows-inspired distros, or busy distros that try to pack in excess animations and 3D icons that don't have the same clean look.
Archinstall scares a lot of regular users, and they just want to start with a GUI and some basic apps, because they can alter what they need later.
The first several minutes are just him apologizing in case someone feels attacked he said their distro was overrated. What an obnoxious waste of time.
Someone can "have a point" and still just be wrong.
Creationism has a point, it's just a point founded on archaic myths.