ideonek

"... for task that can be completed sucesfully with copy-pasting output with little to no changes": the same not peer-reviewed MIT study published hasetly "to protect the children".

We are better than this.

That's exactlyn the risk with violent ones. They make it easier to paint you as extremist or unreasonable radical. The big part of the effecivness of the non-violent one is that they are more sucesful at making people deflect to the right side.

I'm honestly not sure about this 3.5% number anymore - there are a lot somewhat subjective qualifiers there. But the point is that the study was conducted based on protest in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. And - all over the board - the non-violent movements were noticeably more sucesful sucesful than violent one. Yes, idea that 3.5% means guaranteed success is wrong. But solution to protest being squashed ramians the same - more protests.

I belive word "democracy" modyfies word "movement" here. Not the country where moment happen.

I would ask what's wrong with BBC, but I don't want to get into that. This study is the source study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance_Works_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Nonviolent_Conflict

I think it was based on over 320 cases from 1900-2006.

Belarus is a hard case, since the meeting the goal depending on the estimates, and this varies a lot. But you could be right. The Bahraini uprising is more clear-cut exception to that rule. So fair enough.

But still the opinion that large sustained protest are ineffective is less evidence based that stance that they are effective.

No democracy movement has ever failed when it was able to mobilize at least 3.5 percent of the population to protest over a sustained period.

The answers to protest failing seems to be more protests.

I'm glad you understood me know, thank you. I adapted your approach to learning languages - speaking slow and laudly. It worked like a charm.

I like to think I would less judgmental about people attepting to communicate with me in the only language I know. Maybe approach like that is the reason work is the only place where people spent time with you ;)

That's a healthy approach.

hmm, so having or not having kids have impact on your sence of workplace community during remote work?

Does it add up to you?

No, I think that's the fair take. But to me, it's similar when people say "Studies may teach me a thing, but I'm glad I went there because I met all this people"... Yes, you spent X years there. You'd probably bound with someone over that time if it was a different place as well. It's perfectly understandable to have a need for structure. I just wish that work isnt that sole source of structure in most people live.

On the other hand, when people show they who they really are... you should believe them. There are some views that are either ignorant or bad will. I think evidence of those is a reasonable deal-breaker. And it's perfectly ok if you have your line drown somewhere else as well.