The violence wasn’t simply for political reasons, as you suggest. It is to accomplish political goals by causing fear and terror in people associated with that brand. That seems like terrorism to me.

Damn, pen so out of shape that he’s sweating.

The definition doesn’t set a limit on the number of people injured by an individual act.

Setting a bunch of lithium batters on fire is absolutely dangerous to people nearby. The fact that none have been killed yet is simply a sample size problem.

Arson is inherently a violent and lethal act. And honestly I’m very doubtful about your assertion that power loss is somehow more lethal than a fire. Almost 4k people died from fires in 2022. I can’t find the corresponding stat for power loss, so feel free to do some research.

Terrorism is the act of using violence or intimidation for political gain/control.

That’s exactly what their motivation is.

Did you have issues with that definition when a couple of hicks shot up a bunch of electrical equipment?

No one has to be directly or physically injured for the act to be an attack.

I’m all for tesla dealership vandalism, but doesn’t it pretty much fit the bill as terrorism? It’s violence against noncombatants to achieve political aims. Whether we agree with it or not doesn’t really change that definition.

When something becomes substantially easier to do, the prevalence of it is going to increase substantially as well. So it’s not that phishing is going to get any more complex or deceptive. It’s that it’s going to come from 10x+ more endpoints. And while you personally may feel immune, it’s all a numbers game to the scammer. The more attacks they send out, the higher their success rate.

If you’re already getting 10 scam calls and texts a day, imagine getting 100. If you’re getting 100, imagine getting 1000.