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:

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:

  • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]
    ·
    11 months ago

    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:

    • if it's not rewritable, you have to do surgery on the pet whenever the info changes, or it will be out of date in short order. An external db is easy to update.
    • if it is rewritable, then its contents are not assured to be valid, you end up having to implement some way of authenticating the data contained therein which is nontrivial. you could have people rewriting them and claiming stolen dogs as their own, etc.
    • all of this adds complication and expense, which combined with the profit incentive of the manufacturer to keep it a closed system makes it a no brainer to just KISS (and charge just as much if not more money, e.g. profit more)

    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

    • edge [he/him]
      ·
      11 months ago

      if it is rewritable, then its contents are not assured to be valid, you end up having to implement some way of authenticating the data contained therein which is nontrivial. you could have people rewriting them and claiming stolen dogs as their own, etc.

      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.

      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

      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.

      • YearOfTheCommieDesktop [they/them]
        ·
        11 months ago

        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...