Well, we're not falling for communism, so my focus is on fascism at the moment.

Although arguably the communism you're thinking about was/is fascism in disguise, not communism. Communism hasn't really been tried yet - or tried and turned fascist. It's pretty much a utopic idea at this point.

I'm not talking about change, I'm talking about progress. Progress is not necessarily positive.

But not necessarily interpreted.

I'm not sure dutch biking is a good example for slow biking. A lot of bikes here in the Netherlands are e-bikes these days, and even without e-bikes people tend to be quite fast, especially on main streets that go straight for a while.

But then, most streets have bike lanes, and cars are very bike aware in streets that don't. Pedestrians and bikes don't share the same space.

Yes, every modern browser warns by default when using an insecure website (unencrypted, encrypted with an unknown certificate, and other reasons). The point is to make it as difficult as possible for people who don't know what they're doing to access insecure websites. Usually the option to ignore the warning is hidden behind small "Learn more" or "More options" clickable text, which then reveal the button to ignore the warning.

If you use any of the big browsers, you'd need to have a very outdated version to not have that by default.

A VPN does help with privacy, yes. A different DNS than the default one can help with privacy as well, considering that the default one is usually your ISP's own DNS, and the DNS you setup can see the domains you visit.

DNS over HTTPS is the encrypted alternative I was referring to, yes. Having it configured is best, but it is rarely the case by default. Most VPNs automatically setup their own DNS, usually over HTTPS, when they're on, which is why I said it usually completely fixes the issue.

I don't think anyone who is not particularly worried about privacy should worry about having custom DNS setups or VPNs for anything other than spoofing your location (or eventually some side features like blockers, but that's not really part of the VPN). Changing the DNS configuration is an easy and free step though, so if you want to worry about the privacy of people around you, setting up a more private DNS, and over HTTPS, is not a bad idea.

Oof, that's a tough question to answer in here. There is no really good way to generalise who has what power, and there is probably many ways to split the powers in a meaningful way.

You can read the articles on both positions specifically for France, which I do think in this case is a great example, on wikipedia, although if you want a more precise and complete understanding you'd probably have to read the french article and translate it.

The main advantage of this system is that when the president doesn't have the majority to support him in the parliament, most of the executive power de facto shifts to the prime minister, who is usually nominated (by the president) in accordance with the parliament's majority coalition. When that's not done, the parliament can move to "censor" the government and force the president to nominate a new prime minister, who then nominates the rest of the government.

That system is a good way to make sure the president doesn't do whatever the fuck they want if the parliament disagrees.

1. Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
2. I'm not overthinking it. Doing stuff like this is my job. I receive a problem, I ask the questions to get precise requirements. What I am telling you is that depending on who answers these questions, the outcome of the elections can be completely different. In a very oversimplificated way, it's a new, even sneakier way to gerrymander.

It is better than FPTP, but not a great system either. The flaws are similar to FPTP: The final winner may not be the candidate that would be most approved by the pooulation.

The main arvantage of it is that you can go wilder during the first turn, and pick a small party that you truly support, in hope it passes to the second turn. That happens often enough. And if it doesn't, then you vote for the least bad candidate in the second turn/the closest candidate to what you want.

No! France has a head of state (the president) and a head of government (prime minister).

They are both powerful, none of these role is performative.

The arguably huge downside of this, is that it cuts the direct line from you to a representative. That undermines democracy, because it undermines your capacity to be heard.

That 96% of the population isn't currently in a state so shitty they'd revolt. We're talking about a dystopian future where there is barely any work to do, yet no UBI or equivalent system. A future where the rich have everything and keep everything. People born in these conditions won't be too lazy for a revolution.