Ways of refreshing physics knowledge?

As a prerequisite for another book I am reading I thought it would be a good idea to refresh my memory on electromagnetics. So I opened the Griffiths Electrodynamics textbook and started doing a random problem (2.45 in the picture attached). But after spending a few hours on it I got frustrated and gave up. I looked at the answer key and it turns out the answer uses a non-intuitive "trick" from a problem 40 problems earlier.

This is bullshit. I thought the problems would be a fast-track to refreshing my physician knowledge, but they turned out to be a big waste of time. I would have been better off just reading the text. I am pissed off that the author wasted my time like this. All the problems in the Griffiths book are similarly difficult. They just test your ability to do complicated math using non-intuitive tricks rather than testing your knowledge of physics. Totally pointless waste of time.

Anyway, does anyone know of any good resources for learning/refreshing physics knowledge? Like, a set of problems to solve, so that you don't have to reread a whole textbook? Except it should be a sane set of problems unlike the ones in the Griffiths book. I am looking to refresh my knowledge of all areas of physics (mechanics, electromagnetics, and nuclear physics).

Now that I think of it, solving physics problems is really a form of idolatry, because you are just doing complicated crap that was devised in some professor's mind.

Maybe it would be better to study something real, such as planetary orbits if you want to learn mechanics. Look at the motion of the planets, and see if you can model them with the laws of mechanics. Electricity is harder because most of the electricity we deal with is man-made.

CONTENTS DELETED

Can't you confirm they are real using a telescope?

CONTENTS DELETED

Flat earth is a theory for idiots who are too stubborn/suspicious to fall for the mainstream agenda (mainstream A), because they like to think they're smarter. It's mainstream B.

CONTENTS DELETED

Occam's razor applies here.  Newton's simple laws of motion and gravity explain all motion we see both on Earth and in the sky.

Maybe Allen has a better theory that is simpler than the mainstream one when taking more factors into account (e.g. the lack of parallax effect). I am curious to hear Allen's explanation for the apparent motion of the planets.

CONTENTS DELETED

This is true of most scientific questions, and Occam's razor says to just pick the simplest model.  I would add to Occam's razor that one should prefer models that aren't just mathematical but also are conceptual.