One time, a TSA official told me "never take off your watch in an airport unless you want to lose it" -- which is how I learned that you can wear your watch through the metal detector just fine, which I've now done dozens of times.
Until a few weeks ago when a another TSA official berated me for thinking I could walk through a metal detector wearing a watch...
Proximity is the issue. If the watch or bracelet wrist is very physically close to the detector, it will set it off.
You're supposed to the watch/bracelet, but you do have to hold your wrist close to your body. You kind of want to hold your hands in front of your body as if you're about to grab one of your wrists with your other hand.
Watches and other jewelry are basically right at the cutoff of detection. They want to detect small knives but not earrings.
This is all absolutely tribal airport knowledge. I had been traveling for work for years, taken hundreds of flights, but I only found this out when my partner tried to go through a metal detector with a semi-permanent bracelet that requires a small screwdriver to take off, and the TSA person mercifully told her exactly how to pose as she walked through the detector.
I just put my watch, wallet, phone and other loose or pocket belongings in my backpack or jacket that's already going in the tray. No chance of losing anything.
My wife and I just habitually empty our hands and pockets into the bin.
Most recent flight we took, she couldn't find her passport for the extra security check right before the gate. It took us about half an hour to get around to having the security open up the (now closed) bag scanner, which lo and behold, had somehow eaten her (securely places in the bin) passport. The tech was shaking his head, saying "See, this is why you don't put your passport loose in the bin" as if that's a normal thing everyone already knows specifically to avoid.
I was told this about my passport and wallet once. Then the other day asked if I could keep a tissue in my pocket and was told to put it in the tray. I think it depends on the scanners (if you’re going through a metal sector it’s fine, if its one of the more fancy scanners they need everything off your person.
In France the left is slowly coming back to X ahead of the presidential election because they noticed they speak in a void (journalists don't care about Bluesky) and also they all blocked each other in the purity battle.
They still hate Musk though.
Personally I think they all suck for different reasons.
> they all blocked each other in the purity battle
I listen to a bunch of (far) left podcast to balance out my media consumption and the amount of bickering about purity is both amusing and slightly scary. Both the wide span of subjects (from racism, to sexism, to ablism, there's something new every day!) and depth ("it's not my job to educate you and here are 5 books about lived experiences that you should read before talking to me") is scary and genuinely interesting. For some people it almost seems like a full-time job.
We even see it in some other, non-political, social circles (knitting famously had a purity competition/obsession a while ago).
I'm still struggling to explain why this is such a focal point for some people. Perhaps this is a modern replacement for religious fundamentalism for some people?
> Perhaps this is a modern replacement for religious fundamentalism for some people
I would say it’s narrower, loosely a sort of heresiology. It would be motivated by a strong internal sense of insiders vs. outsiders. Which isn’t saying much, but I think that’s that.
Listening to Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast I was distinctly struck with the idea that the main thing leftists like to do, even more than fighting rightists, is fighting other leftists.
My (literally, and self-proclaimed) communist former partner noted left-wing infighting. The Monty Python Life of Brian scene about The Popular Front of Judea ("he's over there") are, according to her, totally accurate in spirit.
Ironic, the right does strength through unity, the left talks about it and then argues with itself about who else used the phrase; the last time the left really did it was when trade unions still had teeth.
Basically the gist of it is that if you want to be "on the left", you need to have the exact, correct, and up to date opinion on every single micro-issue or you're literally a fascist hitler paedophile and will be ostracized.
Meanwhile "on the right" as long as you agree on maybe one or two bigger things and you can deal with or tolerate the rest while you move on with winning elections.
> People are still allowed to share their experience and opinions without citations being a requirement.
Expressing feelings and staying assertions are two different things. If you go around saying the sky is red and someone asks you for the source, it's not reasonable to throw a tantrum while desperately trying to move the goalpost by weaseling around with excuses such as "well aktchualy it feels red to me" nonsense.
If you make a statement, own it. If you are caught peddling baseless bullshit don't complain about being caught, complain about mindlessly posting baseless bullshit.
Until a few weeks ago when a another TSA official berated me for thinking I could walk through a metal detector wearing a watch...