"Money" in more ways than one. Certainly having money helps a lot. But there's also a massive element of self-selection. People with a solid connection to and understanding of reality will understand that being a billionaire isn't very fair. They might not understand things like the huge amounts of structural violence necessary for it, but they will at least understand that there's something seriously wrong with some people having more money than you need to be spending in a thousand lifetimes, whilst billions of people struggle in poverty. These people will stop prioritising self-enrichment long before they become billionaires. It's only the bastard type who become billionaires in the first place.

"Vandalism" is just a type of destruction, as I understand it. And tipping over shelves isn't just going to lead to a need to pick them up again and put stuff back on them, plenty of things are going to break. And leak their contents all over the floor, in some aisles.

That's a destructive crime, not a violent crime. "Violence" is when you target other people. "Destruction" for property. In this case, destruction with provocation.

Still not a very clever way to react, of course.

As far as I'm concerned, "hate speech" is not a problem since it doesn't actually exist, but is rather a label for censoring speech that someone hates for one reason or another. I'm more of a "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" kinda guy.

The trouble is, words can actually hurt you, if they convince a mob to lynch you or convince some guy to throw a brick through your window or convince an employer that people like you are scary and shouldn't be offered a job etc. Even if they just force you to stop thinking about some interesting problem you're working on and start planning possible escape routes, that's a small harm.

Well, maybe none of this is likely to be a problem for you. Maybe you're privileged enough that you don't have to worry about hate speech. But various other people are getting killed due to it. It exists.

Worse than that, imperial measures aren't even standardised. Suppose someone tells you there's a "gallon" of some fluid. You don't know how much there is. A British gallon and an American gallon are substantially different.

There are ways of telling whether you're in a dream. Keep counting your fingers, and see if you always have ten. Pinch your nose shut and see if this stops you breathing through it. Read something, look away and read it again and see if it has unreasonably changed.

And yes, you MUST obey commands from the police. PERIOD. Even if they are wrong. Even if they are illegal. Your venue for fighting wrong is in the courts, not in the streets.

Not in a civilised country, that's the point. In the UK, the moment a police officer does anything illegal, they are no longer acting as a police officer. (The precedent was set when someone was found not guilty of "assault on a police officer" because the police officer was trespassing at the time.) Even if they are acting as a police officer, there's no general duty to obey their commands, they need a specific law which makes their specific command in those specific circumstances legally binding. We just don't treat policemen like second-rate gods in Europe.

(Also, "in the courts" is frequently "never", and it's just not healthy to have an instinct to start obeying without question the moment you hear "Police!" Questioning authority has to be instinctive to do it properly.)

One reason why I am never going to go to the US is the way that "non-compliance" can be mentioned in the same sentence as things like threats by so many people. Anyone who expects to be obeyed without question is a menace and should not be trusted with any sort of power or weapon.

Isn't there something fundamentally mad about a contract which requires a court to order people who aren't party to the contract to do something? "Make best efforts to prevent..." is something which could sensibly be part of a contract, but that wouldn't be relevant to a court action like this beyond explaining the motivation.

Report them to the police? I don't know if the laws where you are are different, but in the UK I'm pretty sure that counts as criminal damage, and it sounds like they will have done that to a lot of people.

Any time you see an advertisement on something of yours where being ad-supported wasn't an up-front part of the deal, the advertisers are trespassing against you. Avoid their products as a result. Make it very expensive for them to do this.

There's a difference between seeing crimes committed on TV and film, and seeing your co-workers, whom you have to be in the same building as, committing crimes

It's an even worse legal minefield than that. This has been established in one country, perhaps. But different legal systems may produce different results, and lots of software needs to be compliant in more than one country.

No, innocent people being found guilty is not the system working properly. I meant the thing I said, not some additional thing.

Even if the usernames did match, there would not be remotely enough evidence for a conviction. Proof in criminal cases is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. "Someone might have hacked the account to do their nefarious deeds" would have been a reasxonable doubt. As would a software bug somewhere in the system. Complex systems cannot be assumed to be working perfectly. Starting such a prosecution without having been able to find any corroborating evidence is just hoping for the "he's accused of being a paedo, lock him up!" effect.