On the other hand we have the voluntary relationship a user enters with facebook by creating an account. This is what the article is about and what I was referring to in my comment – the “binary choice between paying for a service and consenting to their personal data being used to provide targeted advertising”
I’m all for GDPR and really enjoy its protections, but I don’t understand this one. If facebook says they need €10/mo to provide their services and gives us the choice to either pay that or to pay with targeted ads, then how does that infringe upon our data [Edit: integrity autonomy]? The service seems to be worth something, so the EU cannot expect facebook to just give it out for less, can they? What’s the basis for this?
Ich bin mir auch fast sicher, dass das vor 15–20 Jahren auch noch der akzeptierte Stand war. Ich meine zumindest, als Kind noch gehört zu haben, dass Wasser sparen eher schädlich wäre, weil die Abwasserrohre nicht mehr richtig durchgespült werden und wir in Deutschland genug Wasser hätten.
Athiest people who claim they definitely know how the universe works
The thing is that atheists don’t do that. They are aware how science works and that what we consider to be true is only the current best approximation.
disproven by Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem
I don’t know much about most of the fancy words you’re throwing around. But I do know that the Incompleteness Theorem only states that statements can exist that you can neither prove nor deny. We could assume that a deity exists that chooses to hide its existence. This assumption would be such an independent axiom. If we take it to be true, however, then it is subject to reasoning, and we can quickly derive that this deity does not have the properties we usually associate with it. So while a deity may exist, it certainly isn’t the one we’re picturing, from which “God doesn‘t exist” follows necessarily.
It’s also worth noting that Gödel was talking about an axiomatization of mathematics, not the ‘real world.’
It’s not about feeling better. It’s about getting the other person to understand that Google exists and that they can use it, too. Too many people refuse to put in any effort of their own and go ask someone instead.
IMHO in that situation answering isn’t even the right thing to do, since it encourages that behaviour and prevents the asker from learning to find out stuff for themselves. Something about fishing for hungry people or so…
When someone is genuinely stuck, doing research themselves allows the answerer not to go down the same dead ends, which saves time for both.
Peple misunderstand “Closed as duplicate” as an insult, when it’s just the hint to look at the provided link. If you didn’t find the answer previously, this just means there are multiple ways to express the problem, which use different words and thus don’t all find the same google result.
Suppose non-targeted ads didn’t generate enough revenue. Would it then be legitimate to require facebook to provide their service at a loss?