The "advice" dispensed by the members of this blog is useless. Rather read credible books on engineering or study at an accredited university than reading the junk "advice" on this blog.
Actually I think EEVBlog has the lowest signal-to-noise ratio of any large internet forum I'm aware of. I've gotten plenty of helpful advice here, and perhaps given a bit too.
I think the point of the LED-circuit discussion went over your head. Yes, it turns out you can solve it surprisingly accurately compared to Dave's experiment-
-the one where he went to the trouble of matching the LEDs. Lots of us know the diode equations and their applications--bias compensation in an audio amplifier for example--but I think most would not bother trying to apply it to such a circuit. And, in the end, it turns out that the person who had presented the problem had no intention of anyone using it.
The analysis that you had attached to one of your posts, I don't know if it is yours or if you copied it, has an interesting statement.
"Engineering students are taught to make reasonable assumptions when there is missing information."Is that really acceptable for 'professional engineers'? Or just for solving academic problems?
And as for your statements on registered and professional engineers, there was a debate on on that long back. Every country and sometimes states has their own rules on this, but those certifications are typically required only for certain activities. Except for one hapless Oregon man who the licensing board went after (they lost, eventually) I've not heard of any such requirement for making public comments or YouTube videos.