Guild Wars 1 made its own little style called CORPG.

A competitive online role-playing game (CORPG) differs from the standard massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in that they are less focused on the massive group experience. All outside areas are instanced, meaning that a player and his group are the only ones there, so that every player gets his or her own unique version of the game’s story without the headache of killstealers or people disrupting the fun.

In Guild Wars, as opposed to one of NCSoft’s other offerings, like City of Heroes, a player might roam the countryside with a group of 1 to 11 other heroes. In an MMORPG like City of Heroes, the group would be surrounded by other similar groups, all wishing to kill the same mobs and achieve the same goals, at the same time, in the same space. Guild Wars eliminates this scramble, letting players take the game at their own pace while playing player versus environment.

The competitive aspect of the name derives from the player versus player, guild versus guild, and an international war called the War of Worlds. In many respects, the PvP version of the game is a very different experience from PvE, using different strategies and playing styles to battle human opponents instead of the computer AI. https://guildwars.fandom.com/wiki/Competitive_online_role-playing_game

It was successful on other primates, the chance that it will work exactly the same on humans is very high and worth the headline.

This how medical studies work, because of ethics. First they prove it works on animals, which they did with great success. But before testing it works on humans, they must first confirm it is not dangerous, before they can ethically test for actual efficacy on a larger cohort.

There are attacks in every country, but I don’t think there is any developed country where they managed to influence the state as much as in the USA.

The big point of this one is that it is not hormonal, and so far this study shows no side effects. So for a couple, it could be the pill with least side effects overall.

Because this seems more invasive and according to the article, it was not yet peer reviewed.
Every solution will have a different balance of risks and benefits, more choice is good.

I don’t think this stops liquid production, it just drastically reduces the sperm count, which is a small percentage of the ejaculation.

There’s more than the USA.

I think it’s mostly a matter of being quasi irreversible rather than fear of surgery. That’s a huge decision to take if you don’t have children.

Male birth control has to be safer and have fewer side effects than letting women carry the burden of birth control.

This first phase study shows no side effect.

It seems you are underestimating the value for men to not be responsible for unwanted babies and to have more control of their own contraception.

Would you trust it less than the female birth control pills?

Could it be the first one to pass this test phase?

To study the safety of YCT-529 in humans, we conducted a Phase 1a clinical trial where 16 healthy men received either placebo or escalating single doses of YCT-529 to assess its safety and tolerability. YCT-529 was well tolerated, and no adverse effects were noted. The positive results from this first clinical trial laid the groundwork for a second trial, where men receive YCT-529 for 28 days and 90 days, to study safety and changes in sperm parameters.

Not an historian, but to give some ideas, the Enlightenment thinkers were “progressive” nobles and bourgeois who succeeded without noble’s privileged and obviously could explain why the system is unfair. It’s tempting to have the romantic image of the little people rising by themselves, but it is not illiterate farmers that could have wrote about the philosophy of governance.
Voltaire had a lawyer father (bourgeois) and a low rank nobility mother.
Rousseau was born in the Republic of Genova (oligarchy with elections) of watchmaking family (bourgeois).
Beaumarchais was also the son of a renowned watchmaker (bourgeois).
Diderot was the son of a knife maker renowned for surgery blades (bourgeois).
D’Alembert was an abandoned child but taken care of by a knight (~noble privileges).
Montesquieu was from high nobility with administrative responsibilities (noble).
Lafayette was from military nobility (noble).

Another important point is that the early thinking was to promote an enlightened monarch, highly educated and aware of the issues of his people, so he could be a perfect leader for the people with some limitations and power balance. Some monarchists today still promote this kind of ideal. There was probably not too much problem to talk about better education in those salons and sharing more power with the other educated people.
Thinking about ending the monarchy came later and the beheading of the king was kind of an interplay of circumstances that was not planned by the early Revolution leaders.