- cross-posted to:
- labour
- cross-posted to:
- labour
The Russian Revolution of 1905, also known as the First Russian Revolution, was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian Empire. It included labor strikes, peasant unrest, military mutinies, and the formation of grassroots councils (soviets) of people's power. It is widely felt that the 1905 revolution set the stage for the 1917 Russian Revolutions, and for Bolshevism to emerge as a distinct political movement. Lenin later called it "The Great Dress Rehearsal", without which the "victory of the October Revolution in 1917 would have been impossible".
The 1905 revolution was spurred by the Russian defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, which ended in the same year, but also by the growing realization by a variety of sectors of society of the need for reform in the face of agrarian crisis, economic stagnation, and political repression. However, it is generally felt that the detonator of the insurrection were the events of “Bloody Sunday”, in which a mass demonstration -led by priest and police agent, Georgy Gapon- which had sought to petition the Tsar for relief, was fired upon by the troops, killing hundreds of marchers.
There followed clashes in St. Petersburg, and spreading unrest throughout the rest of the Russian Empire. Strikes spread in three great waves: January, October, and November. In June the crew of the battleship Potemkin famously mutinied against their officers. There were further clashes in St. Petersburg in December.
The rebellion did not overthrow the autocracy, but by late 1905 the Tsar felt obligated by events to agree to constitutional reforms, including the establishment of the State Duma, a multi-party political system, and the Russian Constitution of 1906.
Documents Russian Revolution of 1905
Megathreads and spaces to hang out:
- 📀 Come listen to music and Watch movies with your fellow Hexbears nerd, in Cy.tube
- 💖 Come talk in the New Weekly Queer thread
- 🔥 Read and talk about a current topics in the News Megathread
- 🐱👤 Come talk in the New Weekly PoC thread
reminders:
- 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
- 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
- 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
- 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
- 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog
Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):
Aid:
Theory:
Is there any good reason pet microchips don't just include your contact information directly on them, besides making you pay for some service to keep it in a database for you? Are there any pet microchips that let you just put your information on the chip itself?
Like it seems like such a simple concept. Save your number and address on the chip, if someone scans it they can see that and contact you. But no, instead it just has a number that you have to use to query some company's database for that information. They probably charge vets to access it too.
one possibility (I do not know if this is true, this is all speculation, but I do have some experience with rfid): the chips only contain a unique identifier and are not rewritable. thus the external database is needed. Now of course implants are available with enough capacity to store some contact info, and even rewritable ones (though they may not have been available at that small of a size when this tech was first deployed), but they are more expensive, and introduce a litany of new problems...
The most basic ones are:
there are also likely other things attached to the microchip ID like medical records which wouldn't fit on the implant itself, so you end up needing an external system for that too. If they were solely to ID the owners of lost pets, less of these things would be issues but enough still persist to be thorny and less profitable
I think you have to think of the chip as an unloseable alternative to the traditional metal tags. Yeah anyone can just take the tag off and put their own tag on, but the point of the tag isn't really to protect against theft.
It's fine for the chip to also have an ID for that kind of reference, but a third party database shouldn't be required to figure out the information that a metal tag would tell you.
oh I'm with you for sure, the tech exists to do it all now and the profit motive is probably a major reason it isn't done. But I think protecting against theft is one of the selling points of a chip as better than a metal tag nowadays.
honestly the ideal implant for the modern day would probably be NFC, readable by smartphone, with a rewritable memory (though ideally it would still require a tool other than a phone to overwrite, as a minor deterrent) for contact/other info, and some sort of unchangeable UUID for medical records, etc.
but an open system isn't as profitable. If one wanted to take matters into their own hands, all kinds of wild reprogrammable implants exist for human use (biohacker nerds not corporate tracking... yet.) so I guess a suitably small one of those would probably be able to do all of the above just fine, and you could probably find a vet willing to implant it for you just to be safe, even if they do think its weird. problem is people don't generally rub their phone all over stray dogs so you'd just have to have a tag directing people to find and check the implant. All in all something that probably isn't effective unless widely deployed...
what if you move or change your phone number?
My phone can read and write nfc data. Do the pet chips use nfc?
NFC or some other form of RFID probably. But they're probably not writable (by policy, not necessity) and even if they were, a vet's computer would probably just say it's corrupted if it doesn't return data in the exact format expected.