folaht

The sounds English makes is pretty good,
but I don't know if it's the culture or the language itself,
but it has a giant tendency to want to use a
euphanisms and dysphemisms to emphasize superiority
over other languages and cultures
and also has a giant tendency to use weasel words,
to weasel in authoritarianisms.

And have ourselves be associated with a country that's currently going into a fascist phase
likely leading to a civil and world war?

No

I have no clue, but it'll be better than a language that thinks it's acceptable for words like "read"
to not just have two different meaning, but two different pronunciations,
while also having words like "sense", "scents" and "cents" be pronounced exactly the same.

And while writing this, I just learned that pronunciation should be spelled with "u" instead of "ou".
That makes no sense.

Nou ja zeg!

Dit zelfver-nederland-cultuurtje moet blijkbaar
nog altijd blijven opkijken naar de taal waar het hoofdland
op dit moment verder afglijdt naar het fascisme.

Lojban for now
Certainly not Esperanto

1. Lojban like Esperanto has been created to be a neutral lingua franca.
2. I've heard that it's a logical language that tries to do away with ambiguity and that sounds interesting to me.
3. Esperanto feels like a language made for the EU rather than the world and so do all Esperanto look-a-likes.
4. Lojban sounds like a cross between Romansh and a lost native American language. Not good compared to my two favorite sounding languages, Japanese and French, but at least more neutral than Esperanto. Esperanto sounds Spanish and Interlingua sounds like an Italian that thought that Esperanto should sound Italian and I don't like how either of those two languages sound.

The US response (media/police/even some of the public) to anything in protest is the most authoritarian response I have ever seen every single time, but I guess that's understandable when you're busy fully supporting a genocide and about half a dozen regime changes attempts per year.

“This is absolutely unacceptable and understandably scared travelers,” said US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy[1:2]. The airports quickly shut down affected systems and searched aircraft out of caution, though no security threats were found[1:3].

Does the computer in your living room get hacked? Check for explosives your basement!
And while we're at it...

The hack targeted cloud-based audio and display systems through a software provider[3]. “Nobody informed us what was going on, there was no crisis response. Everyone was just really confused,” one Kelowna passenger told CNN[1:4].

bring in the guns!
Let's have an army of ICE goons walk in next time and have them shoot random passengers
who may look like they could be part of the terrorist hackers!

Yeah, so I have a problem with #1 and #2 as to what we were taught.
Because what usually happens is..

1. Observe a phenomenon
2. Wonder how that works
3. Search for information on wikipedia
4. Gain knowledge

You don't need to raise questions then.
The only time you raise questions is when there's a lack of knowledge on the thing
and I think it's more often the case that your theory starts when there IS knowledge,
it's just that you think it's either externally wrong (that's not how the balls fall when I drop them from the leaning tower of Pisa)
or internally wrong (This author is saying balls and objects in general fall due to air pressure, but in another book the author says balloons float due to air pressure, huh?!?)

I got that part and most of it from another person, though I added a bit here and there.
So this part has been a bit confusing for me as well, but I think that once you have done your
'perceived discovery of external error' by dropping metal balls from where the author's claim doesn't match your observation,
you will need to list all the things that you think are relevant to what led up to your discovery.

Now I stole the above image from wikipedia, but it's stuff like that that I assume you should have a gallery of,
so that everyone and your grandmother knows what we're talking about and don't mistake it for anything else.

So one's list (the hypothesis) should at least consist of

1. The leaning tower of Pisa (A nice little picture, where it's located)
2. A big metal ball (what it's made of, where did you get it)
3. A small metal ball
4. Planet Earth
5. The air (and why you think that's relevant)
6. The dropping mechanism (I'm assuming one's hands)
7. The exact section (book, page, paragraph) where it says that they should be falling at different speeds
8. The above image showcasing what and a video of you dropping the balls

And that's for the observation that lead to the perceived discovery of external error.
Then you will need to add to the list of what your experiments need.
You know, a stopwatch, more objects, 3D models of those objects,
a better dropping mechanism and a 3D model of that so that people can recreate your experiment,
an air chamber, where you can increase and decrease the pressure.
Stuff like that.

Any of the Sailormoon movies possibly?
Tuxedo Mask usually gets more into trouble than the heroine herself.

Although I wouldn't actually count him as weak, just weaker.
And it's an old anime series, like starting in the 1990s, with later reboots.

Either The Epstein list or Truth social

Very difficult to choose from, since I basically lived without anime for my first 16 years or so,
as internet was rare.

I'd still say anime only though.
It allows me to better point out what's wrong with the US
and in particular what's wrong with US media.

1. The 'assumption as hypothesis' should be replaced with a 'picture gallery of relevant objects and dynamic object group concepts (tornado's, fire), with a description and argumentation why you think these objects or concepts are relevant' as hypothesis.

2. Before hypothesis, an incubation phase should be added where you start with an event that led you to making a hypothesis for your new theory that either led to a (perceived) discovery of 'a lack of information', 'an external error' (the theory doesn't match your observation) or 'an internal error' (the theory says A on page 28, but !A on page 76 in the author's previous book without acknowledging the inconsistency).

3. This also means that during the new method, the entire paper should be inspected for internal errors by going through a complete list of fallacies and checking each sentence for any internal inconsistencies, unaddressed external inconsistencies and any absences of information.

4. And this means that a glossary should be added that's similar to the hypothesis, except the terms are without argumentation for why it should be included the new theory.

These might look like small nitpicks, but this 'fallacy checking' and 'explain by picture' method can turn into a philosophy of it's own that's more fundamental than 'the laws of physics'.