xj

Here’s what ChatGPT had to say. (yeah, AI slop, I know ).

Successful or lasting transitions:

1. Eastern Europe 1989 (Velvet Revolution): Student protests toppled communist regimes; quick move to democratic institutions blocked a return of the old guard.

2. South Korea 1987: Student-led movement forced constitutional reform; strong institutions cemented long-term democracy.

3. Tunisia 2011: Youth uprising ousted Ben Ali; fragile, but managed more reforms than its neighbors.

4. Bangladesh 1990: Student protests forced out Ershad and restored parliamentary democracy.

5. Indonesia 1998: Students ended Suharto’s 32-year rule; transition to democracy largely stuck.

Failed or reversed outcomes:

1. Egypt 2011: Mubarak fell, but the military quickly reasserted power.

2. Myanmar 1988 & 2021: Youth-led protests brutally crushed; no systemic change.

3. Hong Kong 2019: Mass mobilization, but Beijing tightened control further.

4. Bangladesh 2018 & 2024–25: Student protests (road safety, anti-corruption) drew support but faced crackdowns or stalled reforms.

5. Indonesia 2019–20: Youth protests against anti-corruption rollbacks failed to overcome entrenched elites.

Learnings & guidance:

1. Toppling is the easy part.* Building resilient, accountable systems is much harder and requires as much energy as the protests themselves.

2. Institutions matter. Wins lasted where protesters translated momentum into concrete legal and institutional reforms (Eastern Europe, South Korea, Indonesia 1998).

3. Beware the vacuum. Without credible alternatives, old networks (Egypt, Bangladesh, Myanmar) reassert control.

4. Broad coalitions win durability. Success is stronger when youth movements ally with labor, civil society, and reformist insiders — not just street mobilization.

5. International context counts. Where outside powers supported transitions (Eastern Europe), reforms stuck; where they didn’t (Myanmar, Egypt), regimes rebounded.

Takeaway: Gen-Z has shown it can bring a government down in days. The real test is whether it can also build structures that stop corruption and nepotism from creeping back in.

Interesting experiment! Have you considered splitting it into three 1-hour blocks spread throughout the day? That way, people in different time zones would always have at least one convenient slot, and it might also feel more intentional-spending a focused hour instead of a longer 3-hour window.

While transparency and honesty are noble ideals, governments (to take one example) often navigate complex environments involving diplomacy, national security, and political strategy. Do you think it’s possible to run a government entirely devoid of lies? And by government, I am imagining the "for the people, by the people" government that wants good for the people.

Note: I am not pro lies, but challenging myself to think from the other angle.

Dans les champs de l'observation le hasard ne favorise que les esprits préparés. (In the fields of observation chance favors only the prepared mind.)

- Louis Pasteur (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur)

Exactly what I was guessed after reading the law.

He truly belongs to the breed that Apple's 'Think Different' commercial describes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SswMzUWOiJg

Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do. - Apple Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_Different

I assume this would inflate even upon a gentle fall.

Watch the video again.

Go to 00:38, and assume that the dummy was hit by a lorry with flat face. The lorry would make a direct impact on the back of the head, before the helmet inflates.

Go to 03:55, and assume that the cyclist had hit a wall. This time too, the cyclist's head would hit the wall.

I wouldn't buy this helmet.

stunning!

Have a look at these two: fish-eye and reverse fish-eye views:

http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=108.9... http://360gigapixels.com/tokyo-tower-panorama-photo/?v=108.9...

good point :)

ya, sufficient capital to get all the things up and running, and being able to hire smart people seems to be a prerequisite. Otherwise, with just the founder and couple of guys working in a dorm room or limited budget, this doesn't sound like a good idea. In fact, it's probably a very bad idea in such a scenario.

The way they manage startups, yes. It's however very difficult to ideate so many (which these guys don't), but giving shape to a couple of ideas and managing them independently like these guys do is not impossible it seems.

To put it in simple words: Should you put all your eggs in one basket? The investors don't.

Right, at this point, you're not a soldier. You're a commander leading a battalion of hand-picked soldiers who are probably smarter than you (if you have funds and can hire well). This way, you're multiplying your effort by not doing the ground work yourself.

With two hands and 24 hours in a day, it's just too limited how much you can accomplish yourself.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Steve jobs example cited above.

Take Steve Jobs for example. He worked with Apple, NEXT and Pixar parallelly for sometime I believe. Other than that Apple itself is no lesser than multiple startups/companies as it is - a computer company, software company, mobile phone maker, digital distribution company, and more.

I believe your answer is based on the assumption that founders work closely on every details, and working on several startups might get them distracted.

But how about recruiting the right people for the right job (well, this wouldn't be possible for startups with meager fund though) in each of the startups so that the ideas get implemented as they should, and the founders, rather than actually developing the projects ground up, merely act as project managers, monitoring the progress and validating the results against their vision.