A few hours later, the “few details” emerge:

But he suggested that Ukraine should neither rearm nor mobilise and that western military aid to Kyiv be halted during the 30-day ceasefire.

Some people probably say that “it was worth trying” (others would say it wasn’t).

It is good to hear that Ruslan is alive and able to give an interview.

It is sad to know that he likely won’t be out before the regime falls.

He did more than one person can be expected to do.

A readable article (not video) about the case:

https://digit.site36.net/2025/02/03/three-antifas-still-underground-in-budapest-complex-from-2023-which-is-keeping-european-courts-busy-this-month/

Notably, Maja T. was extradited from Germany to Hungary by cops who were unaware or ignorant of the Federal Constitutional Court’s order to stop the extradition.

Some other participants will be tried in their native countries, while some are still being sought. One accused person (Ilaria Salis) obtained diplomatic immunity by being elected into EuroParl from Italy, and was subsequently released by Hungary.

The alleged crime: a violent confrontation with far rightists, likely during their procession commemorating a breakout attempt of Nazi soldiers from a Soviet siege during World War 2. Cops have said that “striking tools” were used. We don’t know currently if those were mere flagpoles or something else.

Charges have been raised by Hungary of forming a criminal organization and causing serious (“life-threatening”) bodily harm.

We don’t currently know if the charges are bogus. Due to the “organization” part (90% likely bogus) and a considerable presence of women among the alleged attackers (women are not the statistically likely candidates to undertake melee fighting), I think charges are exaggerated. However, the medical reality seems to be that 4 people arrived in hospital with “serious injuries”, and had to get these somehow.

Given the situation with democracy and independence of the courts in Hungary, I think it would have been better if all defendants would have been tried in their home countries. Now we can only observe the differences in outcomes.

Notes:

• it is difficult to help them (short of electing them to a parliament)

• if one crosses a border with the possibility of getting involved in violence, one has to be very careful, given that maintaining anonymity during international travel is near impossible

• one should get acquainted with local laws, know what methods of fighting may lead to what charges

• one should not leave any impression of being an organization

My own experience: for the first time, a Pride parade was being held in Vilnius, Lithuania. A friend from the local LGBT scene who was also an anarchist asked if I’d want to join. I said yes. Since we had good reason to believe that boneheads whose neck diameter equals their head diameter would show up, I researched what could be brought along to Lithuania from Estonia without a fuss.

Apparently, pepper spray was legal all the way down to Lithuania, so I chose to bring 3 industrial-sized cans of pepper spray, the kind cops use for riot control. There being no upper limit, I knew I could not be accused of carrying too much. I also brought a moped helmet with a visor. In the end, violent boneheads did show up, but spent their energy throwing things at cops and getting sprayed by them.

Unfortunately, had the setting been Hungary, my conclusion would have been that “pepper spray is illegal” - apparently their government does not want people to have convenient and safe means of self defense. :(

Generally, it’s always smart to leave violent confrontations to locals, as they know better and can hide themselves better.

I don’t know either, but I would rather use a proper agricultural sprayer with a proper tank and hose. You don’t want to spend a century painting, liters per minute is what counts.

…as for effect, it would discourage subsequent use of tear gas, because the gas mask would need cleaning.

For starters, under the title link, you’ll find The Guardian.

But I also warmly recommend the BBC. They are state-owned, but the UK has kept itself out of their business.

The executive order in question is likely no. 14215, currently disputed in court by the DNC. Among other things, it says:

"(b) “Agency,” unless otherwise indicated, means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), and shall also include the Federal Election Commission.

…and also…

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties.

No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.

It’s easy to foresee that he wants to alter the constitutional order and establish an authoritarian regime.

Some sound advise to people in the US:

• observe what becomes of the legal challenges to this and other executive orders
• see what political action you can take within established frameworks
• get in touch and establish communications with like-minded people

If the situation worsens, you will benefit from secure communications between people, to hold your councils, make smarter decisions and organize action.

Also, some controversial advise:

• if you’re into tech, find a nice hobby involving something like drones, model planes, airships, tethered blimps, kites, rockets, RC cars, boats, subs or even stationary robots - something that is interesting and fits your budget (let’s hope you’ll use your skills for fun and wholesome things, but life could make corrections)

• it also benefits to know your way around communications: how to participate in a mesh network, how to establish a radio link to some distance, how to lay single mode bare fiber between 2 points exceptionally fast

Cali, norway, japan or south korea?

Estonia. And it’s probably the only one in the capital, with two more in the country. Nothing serious so far, folks are just experimenting a little. There’s supposedly a fuel cell powered self-driving minibus somewhere, but I haven’t seen it.

I mostly agree. I have seen a local hydrogen gas station and they had to invest a lot in safety measures.

I don’t see hydrogen as a viable street transport fuel.

However, I think it could be a viable stationary turbine or ship fuel, and a viable ingredient for synthesized methane or synthesized alcohols (provided that a cheap input of CO2 or CO is available).

The article itself provides the data to argue that it’s sensationalist.

Hydrogen is therefore an indirect greenhouse gas with a global warming potential GWP of 5.8 over a 100-year time horizon. A future hydrogen economy would therefore have greenhouse consequences and would not be free from climate perturbations.

If a global hydrogen economy replaced the current fossil fuel-based energy system and exhibited a leakage rate of 1% then it would produce a climate impact of 0.6% of the current fossil fuel based system. If the leakage rate were 10%, then the climate impact would be 6% of the current system

P.S.

Nobody in their right mind will spend energy to manufacture a gas and then let 10% of it leak out unused.

Leak rates characteristic of fossil gas systems are related to the nature of fossil gas systems.

If one uses a disco laser or laser pointer in the visible wavelength range, it’s hard to inflict permanent blindness with it. During the time it would take to inflict thermal damage to the retina, reflexes kick in and the person looking into a laser will close their eye and turn their head.

Occurrences of permanent blindness are rare. This study, even if a bit old (2015) introduces the topic with helpful case reports, for example:

Two young soldiers (Cases 1 and 2) aged 27 and 28 years respectively, serving in the Oman army, projected penlight like devices emanating bright blue-green light into each others eyes (left eye for Case number 1 and right eye for Case number 2) for about 5–10 s. They competed with each other to determine who could bear the light longer while celebrating the success of a local football game.

Basically, they did the utmost stupidity: forcing oneself to stare into a laser at close range. They paid a price and damaged their vision, but didn’t go blind from it.

Of course, it’s a different story with cutting and engraving lasers, and lasers outside the visible wavelengths - you can stare into those without any reflexes helping avoid damage. The same article mentions another source, reporting about a guy (also military) who looked into a high-power range finder and perforated his fovea (the area where high-resolution vision occurs). It was most likely an infrared laser.

So, be careful but disco lasers won’t strike a person blind.

A fun question for you: can a worker in China start an independent trade union?

The answer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_relations_in_China

Independent unions are illegal in China with only the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) permitted to operate.

China is a mostly capitalist country with the state owning a lot of capital, and a “communist” party deciding without a mandate from people. But it retains some features of socialist policy.

In year 2021, Beijing was the city with the biggest number of billionaires living there (later, Mumbai took over).

If you take the list of countries by income inequality, you will see that China has greater inequality than most of neighbouring countries, and most of Europe.

Some Gini indexes of Asian countries, more equal first (source: United Nations University, World Institute for Development Economics Research):

• Kazakhstan 27.79
• Pakistan 29.59
• Taiwan 32.58
• Mongolia 32.74
• South Korea 33.10
• Japan 33.40
• China 36.67
• India 37.06

Some highlights from other continents:

• Ukraine 25.63
• Poland 28.56
• Canada 28.80
• Sweden 30.08
• France 31.63
• Egypt 31.89
• Switzerland 33.82
• UK 34.24
• Russia 36.03
• USA 39.79
• Turkey 42.60
• Mexico 44.01
• Zimbabwe 50.26

Going by the Gini index, China has a lot in common with the USA and its closest matches among big countries are Russia and India.

China is a democracy.

Yes, the Republic of China appears to be a democracy.

About the People’s Republic of China, we can read in Wikipedia:

A movement for increased democracy and liberalization stalled after the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre in 1989.

So, we read that democracy never came.

China is a unitary one-party socialist republic led by the CCP.

So, we read that only one party is allowed to exist and rule. We also read about CCP propaganda, which I think you have consumed too much:

The PRC officially terms itself as a democracy, using terms such as “socialist consultative democracy”,[186] and “whole-process people’s democracy”.[187] However, the country is commonly described as an authoritarian one-party state and a dictatorship,[188][189] with among the heaviest restrictions worldwide in many areas, most notably against freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, free formation of social organizations, freedom of religion and free access to the Internet.[190]

I should note that according to its own words, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea) is also a “democracy”, even if its passing of power among the Kim family resembles a hereditary monarchy. If you take words and slogans at their face value, you’ll be easily mislead.

P.S.

little one

Don’t troll. Also, don’t spread disinformation.

That’s not an honest comparison.

You have chosen the police-reported number of protesters (338 K) instead of 2 M reported by other sources.

You have also made a false comparison between Hong Kong (~10 M people) and the entire population of China. I recommend to use percentages. Up to 20% of the local population showed up to protest. More were dissatisfied.

What number of Chinese would show up to protest if a hot topic would appear and the regime would seem weak for a moment, is unknown.

The cops were likely doused with ABC powder by their fellow cops, and got away with light burns (heavy clothing helps). Lee Chi-cheung seems to have been hurt badly. The protester with a stick and swimming board was saved by surgeons (the bullet missed his heart).

A side note: some HK brutality was outsourced to the “white shirts”, whose allegiance could be denied. (In HK, a black shirt meant you were a protester, while a crowd of young men in white shirts with sticks - was usually associated with triads doing a favour to the city government. Their most publicized “feat” was the mass beating at Yuen Long subway station.) Overall, Hong Kongers seem to have done their protest with “comparatively little violence” (relative to their total number).

When mass protest occurred in Chile, I was busy and missed the news. I managed to register what was happening, but no details.

An example of the cost of a very severe protest which stopped short of a war, would be the Maidan events in Ukraine. The cost was 108 civilians and 13 police killed. A big number for a protest - mostly bullet wounds - but a small number compared to what is taken by a war.

I observed the events keenly. Regarding numbers. As always, in a situation like that, police will under-report the number of protesters, while protesters will over-report the number of protesters. Journalists will try to make sense of it. Two examples:

While police estimated attendance at the march on Hong Kong Island at 270,000, the organisers claimed that 1.03 million people had attended the rally, a number unprecedently high for the city.

A protest on the following day had almost 2 million people participating according to an CHRF estimate, while the police estimated that there were 338,000 demonstrators at its peak.

The spread is rather large, 10 times difference. A survey of mobile phone operators to get their statistics likely would be able to tell how many really participated, but I’m not aware of one, and besides it’s all under Chinese control now.

Now, one of your claims sticks out - I need to ask for your source. You write:

the Chinese government took extreme cautions not to appear brutal, even when protesters murdered several cops and counter-protesters

This claim appears to be entirely false. Can you tell, where did you get the information? In retrospect, and in agreement with daily news as I recall them, according to Wikipedia:

Two died during protests and clashes,[11][12] 13 committed suicide.[13][14][15]

Report about death 1

[12:55] Student Union appeals: All Hong Kong citizens put down what they are doing at 1pm and observe a moment of silence for Mr. Chow.

12:30 A government spokesperson said in response to media inquiries that the HKUST student fell in a car park in Tseung Kwan O on the morning of November 4 and died after undergoing surgical treatment at the hospital.

Report about death 2

A 70-year-old cleaner outsourced by the Food and Civil Supplies Department was hit in the head by a brick opposite the Northern District Hall in Sheung Shui during lunch the day before yesterday. Police said they had arrested suspected persons involved in the case.

You are correct, it didn’t work.

HK was economically dependent on China already, so their last struggle occurred too late, under the implied threat of the Chinese army moving in. The city government found ways to bring in Chinese police (or interior ministry troops) to overcome and outlast the protests.

To my knowledge, a US police department was sieged and damaged with fire (somewhat short of getting burnt down) during the rioting that occured after killing George Floyd. The officers had firearms, but because of a mix of reasons did not start indiscriminately shooting at over a thousand people. Perhaps out of enlightened self-interest.

It is definitely worth noting that HK didn’t have firearms in civilian circulation, but on a few occasions, police did use their guns to shoot a protester. I recall an incident of a kid with a swimming board and stick being shot in the chest while fighting against cops.

To narrow down the frame a bit further - the situation in HK involved incredibly large mass protest. At least a quarter of the population was on streets on certain days. Young and militant protesters were just the outer edge - most participants were not militant at all. In such a context, police generally do not want to provoke outrage, because they’re in a very deep minority.

Much depends on what protesters really want. Every person ultimately has their own ideas, but in broad categories:

• do protesters hope to intimidate / persuade the government?
• do protesters want to block government action, but lack offensive intent?
• do protesters intend to defeat and overthrow the government?

Different behaviours will follow depending on goals.

a) Intimidate: showing maximum numbers becomes an important goal. To show maximum numbers, a protest has to be peaceful, so retired people and kids can join. A peaceful mass protest may be a pre-stage for a less peaceful action later, if demands are ignored. It serves to bring people together and bring them into contact with each other. No special gear is required, at least from most participants.

Peaceful mass protest can succeed if a government is frightened of numbers and backs down. It typically works in a democracy.

b) Block: in such situations, protesters often construct roadblocks and barricades around points they care about, and crowd around those points, supplying them - while laying siege to opposing bases, preventing movement by constructing barricades, sabotaging vehicles or slashing tires, denying access to communications, surveillance data, fuel, electricity, heat, water or even sewage.

Blocking a space without offensive action may prevail if a large majority of people do that, against a government which is exhausted, demoralized and has low legitimacy. In the former Soviet block, “velvet revolutions” often involved people persuading soldiers to disobey, offering food, beverage and psychological support to ignore orders, and dissuading cops from showing up at work. This won’t work if an opponent has lots of ruthless people willing to kill, who cannot be approached for mass discussion and negotiation. Blocking and persuading will work better if the opponent doesn’t feel threatened. If you want someone to defect, you don’t approach them with a gun, even if you have one as a backup option. You approach them with beer, preferably a whole crate. :)

c) Defeat: now this is something that usually ends badly. Regardless, it’s possible for protesters to defeat a government if the military refrains to act. Revolutions where protesters defeated law enforcement and overthrew a government have typically involved scores of people getting shot. It seems almost a rule that protesters will only win if they escalate fast and cut off law enforcement supply lines. It will help them if an another branch of government is ready to step in and replace the offending one (e.g. parliament is ready to dismiss the president, similar scenarios). If they are slow or can’t break supply lines, they’ll be defeated or the situation will devolve into a civil war.

Depends on whether they’re punk. :)

EVs can also be a solar gentification / dystopia, if they have a deadly price tag followed by “everything breaks and you can fix nothing on your own”. Many current EVs are dangerously in that direction. Accept only the simplest and most open systems. Even if you never intend to get your own hands dirty, getting cheap assistance will depend on that.

I think they’re aiming for storing and transporting a large amount of energy (e.g. enough energy for the whole winter). Which you conventionally do as fuel.

It’s making syngas (mix of hydrogen and CO).

So it begs for a next step. Syngas on its own is not a practical fuel. Unlike methane, it can’t be liquefied (hydrogen does not liqefy under economically feasible conditions). Due to free hydrogen, it makes metals brittle. Due to CO, it’s poisonous. And like most fuels, it’s flammable - I think we can’t blame a fuel for that. :)

The next step is hydrogenation of carbon monoxide. I’ve browsed literature and read my fair share via Sci-Hub, and this step tends to have various issues: reactivity, selectivity, catalyst cost and catalyst lifetime.

Reactivity: often, you have to raise either the pressure or the temperature to levels which complicate industrial production. Directly reacting CO2 with H2 faces those issues, but the catalyst (Cu + ZnO) is cheap.

Selectivity: suppose you want to get methanol, the simplest alcohol. Unfortunately your catalyst gives you a mix of methane, methanol, ethane, ethanol and buthanol. To build an industrial process, you need an extra step to separate them. If you get too much byproducts, your fuel production plant could become considerably bigger and more costly. So you definitely want good selectivity.

Catalyst lifetime: suppose that 1 kg of catalyst manages to produce 100 kg of fuel. That’s nice in a lab, but clearly unaccepable in industry.

Catalyst cost: for example, you better not need appreciable quantities of rare metals (e.g. rhenium, nice catalyst, but 2500 euros per gram).

Recently, much has been written about hydrogenation of CO in its liquid phase (at high pressure, not low temprature). For example here. The catalyst is manganese (price OK) and the “total turnover number” (representing catalyst lifetime) is 12 000, which I’d describe as “good enough to go out of the lab, if cheap enough”. In the summary, I can’t find their batch time. In another study about CO + H2 via manganese, people used a batch time of 8-12 hours. So there is a reactivity issue present, but maybe it can be overcome.