Posts by Nicole James

nimblegardener37 said:Hey everyone,

I’m looking for some guidance—specifically, what’s the gold standard for setting up airflow in a rig like this?

Here’s the chassis I’m working with..



I was sketching out a plan along these lines. I’ve got six available slots for 120mm fans..



Now, regarding that bottom fan: I’m worried if I flip it to pull air into the case, it’ll fight against the GPU’s own fans blowing in the opposite direction. Or am I just overthinking it? Is that actually an issue?

Keep in mind, I’m currently running a basic stock CPU cooler, but the plan is to upgrade to an Arctic Cooling Freezer 33 eSports Edition soon, so please factor that into your logic..

I'm all ears. Let me know what you think..

Look, if you cram six fans into a single chassis, that sixth fan is probably going to drop your temps by maybe a fraction of a degree—all while making your PC sound like a literal tractor. Honestly, don't bother. Just stick to two fans in the front to pull air in and one in the back to exhaust it, and you'll be perfectly fine. If anything, focus on maintaining positive pressure inside the case—meaning you're bringing in more air than you're pushing out—because that’s what actually helps prevent dust buildup from getting everywhere.

Chloe Martinez7 said:I don't have an issue with school kids and religious studies—I’m probably a bit of an outlier on that subject myself—but just a quick reminder for Disney: religious education is still... Election season. The subject matter itself should probably be placed at either the beginning or the end of the schedule, or perhaps just slotted into a different shift like everyone else. Elective courses..

I suppose the debate over where to send kids who aren't enrolled in religious studies will eventually settle down on its own. It’s only a matter of time before that whole headache clears up.
Parents will probably figure out whether their kids are heading into school late that day or showing up early. Or maybe they’re just opting into some other elective course.

Religious studies isn't actually an elective; it’s more like a "mandatory requirement for those who choose it." It explicitly shouldn't be placed within the daily schedule in a different position than any other mandatory subject. That is how it is written in the agreements through which the USA transfers its sovereignty to the capital.

Candida is essentially always present within our bodies—it just takes the right set of circumstances for it to trigger an actual infection.

But if you haven't seen relief in two or three months, I'd honestly suggest telling the older lady she might want to pick up a little cream as well...

He hasn't actually been banned because of his obnoxious behavior—it’s more about the moderator's blatant favoritism ☕

Dear parents—if you’re looking for advice, just go ahead and enroll your kids in religious education classes. I can promise you, they certainly won't walk away learning anything bad...

Matthew Young35 said:I’m not trying to start a fight here, I’m genuinely curious about one thing: how do kids actually process it when they spend two hours listening to a teacher explain that God created humanity—you know, the whole story of Adam and Eve—only to sit through an evolution lesson immediately after?

From what I can gather, there isn't much of a conflict anymore—mostly because evolution isn't really tackled until freshman year of high school, and even then, it's taught so briefly and strictly by the book that most students don't even fully grasp the core concepts being discussed.

shadowcrane91 said:Nah... that just means you should be embarrassed of yourself for being different. ☕

Actually, no—it’s more about not wanting to deal with the broken windows, the poisoned pets, the kids getting bullied, and all those other "perks" that come along with being different.

nimblelynx7 said:I actually went to the registration center to "un-baptize" myself. Not a huge deal—takes maybe 15 minutes—but the look of pure shock and confusion on the woman's face behind the desk? Priceless.

General comment regarding several recent posts:

Some people on this forum claim that school religious ed and church services are separate things. In my experience, they never were. If you wanted to take Communion or go through Kris, you had to attend religious classes at both the school and the church from first through eighth grade. At the end of the year, you had exams at the church. If you failed, you couldn't move up the next year; you had to repeat the grade through the parish program. Before the big milestones—Communion and Kris—there were major exams you had to pass if you wanted to participate.

Now that Kris happens during sophomore year of high school, I’m hearing that students actually have to provide documentation from their high school to prove they are enrolled in religious studies instead of ethics class.

Not to mention how often the people working these offices are your actual neighbors or acquaintances—which basically means you’re outing yourself to the entire town.

shadowcrane91 said:There you go... how does someone claim to be Catholic and then actively work against their own faith's teachings????
Seriously, how????
Everyone else is out there trying to spread the word, yet these self-proclaimed Catholics are just suffocating their own beliefs....

It's like they don't even know who they are or what they stand for!

So, it’s basically a given then—not everyone claiming to be Catholic actually lives by the faith? ☕

shadowcrane91 said:I haven't heard of anyone actually trying to opt out of the census because someone else signed them up incorrectly...

Are you talking about yourself??

Well, I actually went out of my way to deregister myself—since they falsely listed me as Catholic. So, there you go, you've finally heard something.🙂

brisknomad13 said:Right now, this crowd still treats Christian values like gospel. As soon as that shifts, they’ll probably just rewrite the laws to match their new version of the truth.

Keep dreaming.

Just read the constitution.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Losing jobs for religious instructors isn't some "win"—it’s a loss for their families, their spending power, the whole GDP...
Comparing "scheduling gaps" versus respecting diversity, maintaining the educational mission, and saving jobs... is such a wild clash of priorities. You’re acting like a gap in a timetable is the end of the world, while I honestly can't believe you're even using that as an argument.
It's not even about a "gap," because the Department of Education issued a directive stating these classes have to be first or last period anyway... and so far, there's zero proof they aren't following it. Plus, calling it a gap when nothing is actually missing just shows how shaky your logic is. Then you drop terms like absurd amounts of money... heavy stuff. It’s not absurd; we aren't talking about billions here, and it’s not even a negative thing if that money ends up in the pockets of American citizens who then spend it right here in the States.
And please, walk me through this part about the "abuse of school authority." I'm all ears.

Wow, so basically, religious instructors need to stay entrenched in public schools at the expense of the economy and national debt just to artificially inflate the GDP? 😵

And you're still asking for proof that religious studies isn't explicitly held during the first or last period? Is the lived experience of the people in this forum not enough for you? Isn't it enough that the law clearly states these classes cannot be sandwiched in the middle of the daily schedule? Isn't it enough that representatives from the KC have specifically cited that exact law? If all of that doesn't suffice, then I can't prove it for you, sorry.

As for the abuse of authority, it's actually quite simple. In a school, you don't teach whatever a specific parent happens to want; you teach what society accepts as truth. We don't teach that 2+2 equals 4—or that certain political conspiracies are reality—simply because someone wants them to be; we teach it because there is a consensus among experts. Religious studies is the exception—a subject taught within the standard curriculum, graded with official marks, using textbooks printed by the Department of Education, yet its content doesn't align with scientific fact, but rather with the unprovable dogma of a single religious community.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Religious education is already being held in church halls anyway, so honestly, if they pull it out of the public schools, there won't be any issues—at least not for those looking for spiritual guidance. Where did all those "concerned" followers disappear to? I remember when we were tackling a nearly identical question about fifteen pages ago, and suddenly everyone went silent.

Honestly, trying to find a straight answer to this one is like looking for a needle in a haystack around here...I honestly don't get why people are making such a big deal out of this. It’s like everyone suddenly lost their minds over nothing. I remember back when I was working at a tech startup in Austin, we had a similar blowout over a minor policy change, and looking back, it was just pure drama for the sake of drama. People love to feel outraged; it gives them something to do on a Tuesday night. Anyway, Jason Ortiz5 makes a decent point, even if he is being a bit dramatic about it. And let's be real, brisknomad13 is totally missing the forest for the trees here. We need to stop circling the drain and actually look at the facts. If you ask me, most of this "outrage" is just noise. Typical.

Honestly, I’m starting to think this whole "tolerant" crowd is actually just allergic to anyone who holds traditional Christian values. It’s kind of ironic, isn't it?

Children from non-Catholic families wouldn't have gaps in their schedules.
Kids from non-Catholic backgrounds wouldn't be singled out based on their religious affiliation within the public school system.
The authority held by state-run schools wouldn't be exploited just to push a specific religious ideology.
And we wouldn't see absurd amounts of taxpayer money being drained to pay salaries for religious instructors or to print textbooks for subjects that exist solely to promote one particular religious group.

brisknomad13 said:Forget particular cases—in some places, every kid takes religion, so there's no need to worry about first or last periods...
But they just end up waiting around for other electives instead. A few kids go to Spanish, a few to French, then extra English, then early computer lab... honestly, who knows who's running the show with all that downtime.

Daycares have been set up by centers for ages. Every kid follows their own interests and vibes. It's that Reggio Emilia style. Those little prayer corners in preschools are actually pretty cute. I've seen Muslims and Catholics sharing the same corner.

That's what modern education looks like. Just following your own path.

It's not about cutting things out anymore; it's just adding more stuff to the pile...

God, this reminds me of that one Saudi guy who claims they aren't violating anyone's rights because they've already hanged everyone... 😵

brisknomad13 said:haha... taking Religion class basically means playing nice for once...
If you can survive a Religion course, places like this are nothing.

At the school near my place, Religion happens during the last periods, breaks, or right at the start of the day. Kids just hang out waiting for their other electives—Spanish, computer science, whatever—and since there are so many after-school clubs, there’s always someone waiting around somewhere.

The church is packed with kids on Sunday mornings; you can tell how many there are just by looking at the piles of backpacks left in the vestibule.
Now all 70 teachers are heading over to the priest's place for a Christmas lunch, all happening in a city that's a total stronghold for the Democratic Party.

Real classy.....☕

They have Islamic studies classes at the school too, and honestly, the Catholic theologians work together perfectly with them.
No drama, no scandals. Sure, the kids have to light bonfires and celebrate Halloween, and some elementary teachers are totally against it... but whatever. We know what actually matters.

When the Secretary of Education mentioned that religious studies should ideally be held during the first or last period, the Archdiocese immediately jumped to their feet, citing the Education Act which explicitly forbids special treatment for religious studies regarding where they fit into the daily schedule—essentially saying we shouldn't even discuss specific cases that might serve as exceptions.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:When I say 90%, I’m talking about the rough percentage of school-aged kids enrolled in religious education classes. It tends to be slightly higher during elementary school and dips a bit during high school, but there isn't really any massive deviation from that figure.
Now, how many of those students and their families actually practice their faith on a daily basis is an entirely different conversation. You see all sorts of examples—kids from non-religious households finding their way toward faith, and others moving in the opposite direction.
Personally, I am strongly against forcing anyone to attend religious classes; that would be terrible. At the same time, I don't believe anyone should be discouraged or blocked from attending if they want to.
Choosing to opt out of religious studies just to follow a fad is honestly ridiculous. I don't even know what to say about parents who just chase after fleeting trends... though I doubt there are many like that. Who would actually send their child to listen to something they consider "bad" just because it's trendy?
The only downside I see here is that the government hasn't organized ethics classes in elementary schools the way they have in high schools, which leads to these issues with unsupervised free periods.
Furthermore, I’ve never heard the vast majority of people who choose religious education calling for it to be made mandatory for everyone. On the flip side, you constantly hear complaints from the minority who don't want it, often leading to calls to ban religious education for everyone, including those who actually want it. As for those parents who care more about neighborhood gossip than their own child's well-being, it's probably best not to even engage with them.
Looking at parental guidance, many parents don't bother teaching their children how to read or do basic math, yet they still send them to school to learn those things.
The bottom line is this: religious education is strictly voluntary. There are no negative consequences for those who choose not to participate. Trying to get into the specific reasons why someone chooses one faith over another—or none at all—is a complicated rabbit hole.
The only real issue is the gap in the schedule during those free periods, and the responsibility lies solely with the state to organize something for them. No one else can step in to handle that, and it's certainly not up to the Church to manage public school schedules.

P.S. According to official data from the 2011 Census, over 90% of Americans identify with various religious denominations, while atheists and agnostics make up less than 10%. Various religious organizations can organize these classes in accordance with parental interests.

I have to admit, I didn't quite follow your point about the "excessive Mass." I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The truth is, nobody can force you to send your child to any religious service. If you do choose to send them, then you have to accept the rules of the religious community you selected for your child. Otherwise, find another one. We live in a free country.
If a parent views a religious rite as senseless or unnecessary, I truly wonder why they would expose their own children to something they hold such a negative opinion about.

Is that really how it works, though? I mean, just how many votes would a political party have to pull in an election to be granted the right to teach mandatory political science classes in our elementary and high schools?

I’ll step away from the main topic for a second.

The Supreme Court recently handed down an acquittal for a religious instructor, ruling that her comments didn't actually label homosexuality as "depravity" or a "disease"—instead, she merely characterized it as "disordered" and "contrary to natural law." This really gets me thinking—for all the parents out there whose kids are enrolled in religious education classes, are you actually aware that there is roughly a 5% to 10% chance your child might be gay? I can't help but wonder how those kids feel in those moments, sitting there while they are told their own inclinations are nothing more than "disordered" or "against nature." Honestly, what kind of damage does that do to a fragile adolescent psyche—listening to such things about feelings they don't even fully understand themselves?

Err, I just wanted to clear up a common misconception people have on this thread regarding why religious studies isn't scheduled as either the first or last period of the day.

Under the terms of the so-called "Vatican Accords," it is explicitly stated that religious education isn't merely an elective—it’s a mandatory subject for those who opt into it. Because of that status, it cannot be treated any differently than any other core academic subject, especially when it comes to how it fits into the daily school schedule. So, if you're wondering why schools don't just slot religious studies at the very beginning or the very end of the day—much like they might with a computer science class—the answer is quite simple: they aren't legally allowed to. There have actually been proposals to move things around, but Church representatives have shut them down quite firmly, citing those exact international agreements. Essentially, if you're frustrated because your kids are idling in the hallways or wasting time in the library during those gaps, the reality is that the Church wants it this way, and the government signed off on it on your behalf.

Man, if I actually lived there, I’d definitely be a Republican...

nimblemarlin6 said:Right... so, in your book, a specific way of organizing production that you happen to dislike is somehow equivalent to—well, let's be blunt—genital mutilation?

Let's look at some hypotheticals here. Imagine a country holds an election and a party wins that runs on a platform of supporting worker cooperatives and self-management.
Say the Green Party wins in America. Their platform isn't about seizing assets; it’s about fostering community-run cooperatives.
Who exactly are they stealing from?

It honestly feels like you're attacking even those kinds of hypothetical scenarios.

And then there's a real-world example—the Democratic Party in Greece is clearly a leftist organization.
In your view, is the Democratic Party just as evil as those extremists in Africa who mutilate children—meaning, would it be considered "moral" to invade Greece and liberate the Greek people from their legally elected government?

The method of production is not the same as genital mutilation, nor did I ever make that comparison. My point was simply that evil doesn't become less evil just because it's voted in through a democratic process.

And now you're conflating two radically different things. First, you were talking about restructuring the entire nation under a worker self-management model—which, by definition, requires seizing companies from their current owners—but then you pivot to something much milder, like providing subsidies for businesses organized under that model. This second option is just a misguided ideological measure that would cause nothing but headaches, but it is certainly a lesser evil than the outright seizure of property that a non-communist could ever dream of.