I was not convinced by the 'stats' in the article. As an argument that there's a nonnegligible chance of armed uprising, okay, but I don't see any reason to bel

I was not convinced by the 'stats' in the article. As an argument that there's a nonnegligible chance of armed uprising, okay, but I don't see any reason to believe the actual numbers. It reminds me of Taleb's Black Swans and mediocristan-extremistan paradigm. We can predict gaussian and binomial events, perhaps even fires and floods if we have enough historical data. But extrapolating from two data points to a totally different time and place is worse than useless, it's misleading. I think Taleb would argue that it's a mistake to use quantitative methods here, but not a mistake to hedge or insure yourself against the possible negative black swan event. Another issue I have is the assumption that, if there is some revolution in your country, that prepping will be either necessary or sufficient. But that's not about the stats.