the experiences around Helene and Milton are just an extreme continuation of a trend where the public is increasingly getting its information from extremist figures online rather than experts

Sadly, all true.

I've had to remind people several times that "if you go reading Twitter, please put on your intelligence analyst glasses". To find a grain of truth in that truckload of dust.

If conservative means "cautious and wary of unexpected results", "disillusioned with methods that we tried and failed with" or maybe even "equipped with experience of successful and failed cooperation with various sorts of people", then yes. Already before age 50, I'm spoiled with various good and bad experiences. I cannot exclude that as my tendency to explore decreases (psychology tends to affirm this trend), I may get prejudiced too. I may have to figure out something to counter it.

But if conservative means that I suddenly don't want a society with equality and without hierarchy, then - nope.

Alternatively, and perhaps more plausibly - people who are new to politics fall for a populist.

I'm a bit scared of where the world is going, but it doesn't make me vote a local populist. One of the things that helps me recognize a scammer from distance - 3 decades of experience with garden variety politics.

As a happy user of Signal (no bugs or incidents from my viewpoint), I regardless chime in to say a word for decentralization. :)

Signal is centralized:

• there is a single Signal implementation, with a single developing entity
• you have to install its mobile version before you may run the desktop version

There exist protocols like Tox which go a step beyond Signal and offer more freedom -> have multiple clients from diverse makers (some of them unstable), don't have centralized registration, and don't rely on servers to distribute messages - only to distribute contact information.

In the grand comparison table of protocols (not clients), Tox is among the few lines that's all green (Signal has one red square).

I attempted to find the source of this image and its spread seems to originate from 4chan (or at least, 4chan was one of the earliest vectors).

Chances of this being a disinformation / prank seem pretty high currently.

To resist an organized group, you communicate the problem (in an anarchist society, communicating the problem of a nascent state seems like the easy part), present evidence of the nature and severity of the problem, and ask people and existing organizations to mobilize.

Whether the next step is obstructing the state peacefully or mass production of munitions, would already depend on how bad the state has got.

The same that stops them from taking over a democracy. Sometimes.

If a society became anarchist enough to abolish state structures, there obviously had to exist a reason - there had to exist popular support.

Thus, someone attempting to recreate a state would face questions and opposition. People would try to persuade them of their error. If they declared a state, anarchists would not recognize it. If it claimed sovereignity above a territory, anarchists might not recognize that either.

The new state might encounter problems - unwilling residents would leave and be accepted in anarchy, annoyed anarchists would organize trade boycotts and sanctions, ultimately it could go badly and armed confrontation could follow. In some scenarios, the state might remain and attract people who want to live there. In some scenarios, war would follow - and if the majority really was anarchist, the state would lose and disappear.

Also notably, the Kronstadt anarchists held a general assembly to dicsuss the question of "shall we accept Lenin's ultimatum, or fight a battle against the Red Army?" and decided democratically to fight.

(The battle was extremely bloody, anarchists lost and the Red Army won, at the cost of losing at least 5 times more people. Considerable numbers of anarchists escaped to Finland.)

In short: anarchists can use heavy artillery when needed, even if they know that war is not healthy - neither for them or the society they want.

True, but there's some more.

Over here, ice roads are opened on typical winters on several smaller bays. The instruction to drivers is:

• don't wear a seatbelt
• if ice breaks, open your door swiftly (get out first, then think about calling people)
• if you can't open the door, lower your window swiftly
• if you can't lower the window, break it (the side window, not the windshield - a windshield is multilayer laminate, too strong to break quickly)

Typically, if a car sinks on an ice road, people are likely to get out. A crank-operated window is handy in such a case. But regardless of instruction, sometimes folks do die. :(

In general, I would not like to experience any sort of extreme incident in an over-engineered car. I'd prefer something from the 1970-ties, but with airbags.

Both of you are right.

It's difficult, but how difficult depends on the task you set. If the task is "maintain manually initiated target lock on a clearly defined object on an empty field, despite the communications link breaking for 10 seconds" -> it is "give a team of coders half a year" difficult. It's been solved before, the solution just needs re-inventing and porting to a different platform.

If it's "identify whether an object is military, whether it is frienly or hostile, consider if it's worth attacking, and attack a camouflaged target in a dense forest", then it's currently not worth trying.

No problem, just tell them to ask from Baghdad, they should know where it is. :) A jug of wine or vinegar, one electrode of iron, another made of copper, voila... the Baghdad battery.

If they overcome / disable ad blocking, they will lose browser market share - and people don't design websites for marginal browsers with exotic features.