Lots of good answers here - it's the kind of question where lots of explanations are partly correct. For me, the decision by early communists to advocate for violent revolution as the only or main way of bringing about communism is a key factor.

It's pretty common for revolutions to produce dictators, going right back to the fall of the Roman Republic. Ironically, the Roman Civil War that preceded the fall was won by the populares - the people's movement, as opposed to the optimates, the aristocracy. And yet, the end result was the abolition of the tribunes, which had been the people's branch of the legislature, and the establishment of the Dictatorship of Julius Caesar, then the Principate of his nephew, Augustus, who we now regard as having been the first Roman Emperor. It wouldn't be accurate to project back our exact ideas of democracy or class politics to the Romans, but it's pretty telling that one of the first explicitly 'class-based' civil wars in history turned out this way.

Many centuries later, the Wars of the Three Kingdoms in the British Isles had a similar outcome: the royalists were defeated by the parliamentarians, only for the victorious generals to set up one of their own as what we would now call a dictator (Oliver Cromwell as 'Lord Protector'), who was virtually a king himself.

(Worth noting here that many people assumed George Washington would turn out to be another Cromwell. The fact that he didn't and the question of why he didn't, is not something I know enough to even begin to speculate about, but is definitely something to look into when trying to understand this topic.)

Most relevant for the early communists was the French Revolution, which led to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte who, more or less explicitly imitating Caesar and Augustus, made himself sole ruler of France, first as 'Consul' (a title also borrowed from Classical Rome), then Emperor. He was also followed, a little later, by his nephew doing a very similar thing, again explicitly imitating the Romans.

Ironically, Marx himself wrote about this exact tendency, even calling it 'Bonapartism', to warn revolutionaries to try and avoid it. I don't know how exactly he missed the point that the very thing he elsewhere advocated for - violent revolution - was itself the cause of Bonapartism but it seems he did. Plainly, the early Marxists didn't sufficiently heed this warning, for whatever reason (and see other replies in this thread for many good suggestions!).

Basically, if you're going to advocate for the violent destruction of a system of government, you are running a major risk that in the ensuing chaos, someone very good at being violent and decisive will end with far too much power.

I'd like my corpse to be used to frame someone for murder. Obviously I can't name names, because that would undermine the plot, but I trust my loved ones to frame up someone who has it coming.

Totally agree with you. One of the things that I love about LDS is that it's not just by and for fans of the show - that's more or less a given with any longstanding franchise - but that it's about fans of the show.

[Spoiler tag here because I'm talking about the most recent episode and I know some people won't be caught up yet!]

Sensible pick. She was previously Deputy Mayor for Transport in London, so she has some background. Seems to have fairly mainstream left views: pro-cycling, pro-public transport.

Officially, the reason is she should specifically have informed the Government about it, i.e., the problem isn't the offence (minor or not) per se but the process. However, you may be right as Chris Curtis suggests there was more to it:

It's also understood she was unaware of any investigation by her former employer, Aviva, involving more than one mobile phone, as reported by The Times. Haigh’s team have not denied this, but have not been drawn on it either.

Great notes, as always!

Freeman sends Purple Data back through the fissure in a photon torpedo tube, much like how Spock’s body was shot towards the Genesis Planet at the end of ST II.

Along with the use of the torpedo tube, I thought Mariner's off-key flute playing in this scene was a homage to Scotty playing the bagpipes at Spock's funeral.

This is also yet another reason SUVs are bad: bigger tyres, higher weight, more wear, more pollution.

It's also another reason to have lower speed limits: less friction, less wear, less pollution.

Yes, particularly difficult with clipless pedals, such that strictly speaking I think it's illegal to ride at night with them!

Try to learn Russian really quickly.

No. But physical proof is not the standard we use for determining someone's historical existence.

You cannot achieve any good by hurting people.

People are so convinced that if we're more cruel to criminals, they'll stop committing crimes, or if we're harsher to workers, we'll work harder, or if you're tough on border controls, immigrants will go away. It does not work and it cannot work.

So, fun fact, St Augustine, who is considered one of the Church Fathers, explicitly argued that if the 'Antipodes' (i.e., southern continents not connected to Europe, Asia or Africa) actually existed and had humans living there, that would prove the Gospel was untrue.

The reason for this is as follows: Christians of his era believed that the reason God had allowed the Romans to destroy the Second Temple and push the Jews into exile was to prepare the men of all nations (as understood at the time) for the coming of the Gospel. The idea was that the Jews had taken the Old Testament, and the prophecies of the Messiah therein, across the whole world. Augustine argues that if the Antipodes contained human beings who had never had any kind of contact with Jews, and therefore no contact with the OT, and no contact with Christians, and therefore no contact with the New Testament, either, that must mean the Gospels are false. Why? Because there's no conceivable reason that a just God would have deprived entire civilisations of the chance of redemption.

Of course, we now know that at the time Augustine was writing (4th-5th century AD), there were literally millions of people who had never had the slightest contact with the Jews or Christians and, furthermore, wouldn't do so for another millennium. So, per Augustine's argument, all those millions were condemned to Hell (the concept of Purgatory didn't exist at this point, but condemning them all to no chance of Heaven, just because they were unfortunate to be born a long way away from Jersualem, is clearly also unjust). Either God is incredibly unjust and unmerciful, which means the Gospels are untrue, OR the Good News wasn't actually spread to all men, which must also mean that they're not true.

The upshot of this is that one of the Church Fathers has, in retrospect, irrefutably argued that the Gospels are untrue. The amount of special pleading required to make out that, actually, the Maori or the Easter Islanders or [insert any other uncontacted peoples here] had an opportunity to accept Christ and somehow missed it entirely is far beyond any sane interpretation of the evidence.

Now, as you might have noticed, this hasn't stopped people from believing in the Gospels. I don't see why the discovery of life on another world would dislodge people from a belief that is transparently false when nothing else has.