A question regarding your approach to convicting a secular person of a crime.

But regarding a small child's Shabbat work, for example, I saw it written as follows:
If a small child did work on Shabbat, if he did it for an adult's need – he is prohibited from enjoying it on Shabbat and on Shabbat night until time has passed for them to be able to do the same work.

However, in this response you wrote differently regarding a secular person's Shabbat deed:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%94%d7%a0%d7%90%d7%94-%d7%9e%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%a9%d7%a0%d7%a7%d7%a0%d7%95-%d7%91%d7%a9%d7%91%d7%aa/

There you wrote that it is forbidden to enjoy his Shabbat deed if it is done for an adult, even after some time has passed when they can do the same work.

What is the difference between a secular person and a small child if both are not guilty of a crime?

The explanation is that the act was done on my behalf and for me, and it is like an act that I did intentionally that is never allowed (not necessarily in terms of actual mission). With a child who I sent to do something for me, there is room to say the same thing, unlike a child who does something for me without me sending him. Perhaps the child does not have a mission and there is more room for leniency. But that is my opinion.

In the context of this question, I wanted to ask about telling a secular person to do work on Shabbat. Let's say the electrical switch in the house is tripped and there is a secular person in the house who is ready to turn on the switch and just asks where the electrical switch is, is it permissible to point him there? What I thought was that there is a difference between telling a secular person and telling a minor or a gentile because the secular is a new reality that the Sages did not recognize and therefore all their rulings on telling a gentile and a minor do not apply to the secular. In addition, the law of education that applies to the minor does not apply to the secular. What do you think?

The lighting for you? So this is a Sabbath act. Also from the perspective of the decree of saying something to a non-Jew, it is a curse to a secular person. This is an interpretation of the existing decree and not a new decree.

There's no real statement here to turn on the light, I just told him where the electrical panel is. Is such a statement forbidden to a Gentile?

Not from a statement to a foreigner, but from a Sabbath act.

Why is there a Sabbath act here if the secular is not subject to sin (like a minor), and is not subject to the law of education (unlike a minor).

There is no connection between education and transgression. Even a non-Jew's Sabbath act is forbidden.

But from what I saw online, in such a case it is permissible to hint to a Gentile that he should turn on the shelter, right?

They only allowed Shvut Dshevot instead of Mitzvah.

Is there a difference in the case where the secular or gentile or small person does the work for himself (and for you, of course).

If the Gentile did it for his own needs, there is no prohibition against doing something on Shabbat. As for when he did it for his needs and my needs together, I don't have a clear answer. It seems to me that if he did it for his needs even if I didn't need it, it should be permissible.

So if we go back to the original case where the electricity switch goes off on Shabbat and there is a secular guest in the house. The secular guest will be happy to turn on the electricity both for his own needs (air conditioner, heater, light, hotplate) and for the needs of the other residents of the house. If the secular guest is going to turn on the switch, is it necessary to protest with his hand?

Here, it seems that there is a need to protest. He turns on my electricity in my house. He is just a guest. Again, in the rabbinical prohibition there is room for leniency, not to detract from the observance of the Sabbath instead of a mitzvah.
As such, I explained that when the Rabbis seated the Rabbis and the Rabbis in a sukkah that is invalid according to their view (Sukkah 10), this is the Hebrews of Danhara because the sukkah is his and not theirs.

In general, do you have any advice on what to do in the event that the electricity bill falls on Shabbat? There is a loss here because the contents of the refrigerator and freezer will spoil without cooling. How would you act in such a case?

Saying to a non-Jew is permitted in the place of a mitzvah or a great need. Therefore, there is certainly a place to allow saying to a non-Jew in such a situation. Regarding saying to a Jew, it is more problematic, since there is a place to say that in the case of sifiya with the hands, his act is considered your offense (Rashi Reish Matot), and if he is mistaken or forced, then even more so (Rambam Suf HaLami, etc.). In general, there is a difference between causing a secular person (an atheist, or at least one who does not believe in the status of Mount Sinai and commitment to the mitzvah) to commit an offense, which I have argued is permissible, and feeding him with the hands and/or getting him to commit an offense for me. Although if he does this on his own initiative, as described above, there is no sifiya with the hands here (as in the Shabbat mishnah, "A non-Jew who comes to extinguish is not told to extinguish and do not extinguish" (because, according to the Jewish view, he does not have the right to do so, and he does not do so, unlike in the case of a small person).

But above you said that only the return of the spies was permitted, and lifting the shelter is a Torah command, right?

Regarding the prohibition of safiya in secular elders, does the prohibition of safiya apply to elders at all? From what I have seen in the sources, it is defined as a prohibition on minors.

The prohibition of the rabbis permitted. In the prohibition of the Torah, one relies on the decoration in place of a great need.
The prohibition of safiya also exists in the great ones. Both from the Masoretic Text, and also see Rambam”s Suf Hilchots Kila'im and more.

But if the prohibition of safiya belongs to the great ones, what is the difference between it and the prohibition before a blind person or the prohibition of an assistant?

Regarding the halal in Rambam, I assume you meant this:
He who clothes his fellow halal if the wearer intentionally caused the wearer to be disabled and the wearer passes because of and before a skin, you will not provide an obstacle, and if the wearer did not know that the garment was halal and the wearer intentionally caused the wearer to be disabled and the wearer is exempt.

But the prohibition of safiya is not mentioned here, but rather in front of a blind person, and even where the wearer does not know that the garment is halal

Before a blind man, this is a stumbling block. Supplication with the hands is an active feeding of a prohibition. Maimonides in the Hilaiim deals with this precisely.

Reverse. Read again. When the wearer intentionally has a blind person in front of him and he is not afflicted. When the wearer is accidental, the wearer is afflicted by the prohibition of hybrids.

But for some reason, the commentators on this law do not mention the prohibition of safia at all. See, for example, the Kasef Mishnah on the website:

He who dresses his companion, etc. The Tosefta in the chapter These are the rules, but it seems that it was written in error and is not intended by the words of our Lord. One must wonder about the words of our Lord, if the wearer did not know that the garment was a garment and the wearer intentionally wore it, and the mother wore it, then it is not written, "You shall not wear it, and because of a devar on the lav, and before the skin, you shall not give an obstacle, there is no rule on it because of a faded lav, or in general. And he himself wrote, "You shall not wear it, because of a devar on the lav, and before the skin, you shall not give an obstacle, meaning that it is not lav, so why is there a connection between Risha and Sifa in the matter of wearing it. And it is even more difficult, if it is not a matter of saying "You shall not wear it, and as we say in P. 3: A Nazirite shaves his head as if he were shaving, because it is written that a razor shall not pass over his head, meaning that he shall not pass over it, nor shall he pass over it after the rabbi has asked the rabbi, and the wearer is not blemished, and this question is written in the responsa of the rabbi who asked the rabbi and we did not receive his answer, and I wonder about the rabbi who did not reach our rabbi on this. And who is it, not blemished, why is the wearer blemished, even though he did not do something that another person put on, as if to say that after putting it on, the wearer should invite himself and cleanse his body. This is an important act, as we have said in the rabbi. These are the blemish on the rabbi. And regarding the issue of Tamiya Kamai, it can be said there that our Rabbi Damdafkinahu, may he have mercy on him, believes that one who wears and dresses in one robe, one who is stripped and one who is not a shirker, is not obligated to both of them as one. And whoever wears and dresses in one robe is exempted from the obligation, and the blood of a razor is not passed over his head. This is not a shirker, but rather a meaning that it is not passed over:

From his words, it seems that he did not raise the prohibition of sifiya as a possibility.

Obviously. That's why everyone has trouble understanding his words (it already starts in the Ram). But this is a distinction that the Rambam makes. And the Kassam's attempt to attach this to the law of wearing hybrids is not appropriate for the Rambam, since he also brings a similar law in the laws of the Nazirite and the impurity of a priest. They simply did not understand that he was talking here about the prohibition of sifiya.

Regarding the prohibition of safiya for adults, originally the prohibition of safiya was taught in order to add a prohibition to someone who is not obligated by the commandments (a minor) if the prohibition is made in safiya for a minor. I assume that this also applies to a fool (even if an adult). But why expand that the prohibition of safiya also applies to someone who is already obligated by the commandments (an adult). Is this a kind of exaggeration?

This does not add a prohibition on the small one, but on the large one. This is considered a prohibition that the large one himself made. Therefore, according to the Maimonides, the one who wears the halal is at fault, not the one who wears it. The one who wears it made the prohibition. And in our case, the Maimonides writes that a Jew who defiles a small or accidental priest himself violates the prohibition of the impurity of a priest, even though the Jew is not obligated to do so.