ADTJ

Oh yeah, I completely concur. I don't get the ux argument either, I always find it to be incredibly slow and frustrating to use whenever I have to

They may eventually get dragged there kicking and screaming but will milk consumers in other markets for every penny they can before that happens

Think you might have confused iOS and MacOS

This is never something I'd have even thought about being privatised, I guess I just assumed it was always in the interest of local authorities to make sure there isn't just shit piling up everywhere and pay for it through taxation. It's also surely much more cost effective to centralise.

Today I not only discover that isn't the case, but that you also commonly have to pay extra to recycle. Like what?! Do poorer people have to just not have their bins collected? Or make a choice about whether things get recycled?!

This has absolutely blown my mind!

If you take it to a refuse & recycling centre yourself (I assume those exist with public access), do you have to pay for that too?!

Previous comment said forward the bills, not invoice the pension manager

Going less than ten miles away? Sure

Going 30+ miles away and no rail links exist? Fuck you, I guess

You are both correct, the law states that it has to be as easy to opt out as in, but most companies are not implementing it correctly

What should it do? It should ask you to confirm the login with a configured 2FA

How dairy make such a bad pun?

No

You say it's not immeasurable but then all of the things you go on to describe are within the known universe, we can't possibly know or measure what's outside of it, because it is not known by definition.

I'm not asking for negative proofs in fact I haven't asked for proof of anything, I'm not sure where you got that from. I've simply stated that we can't draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I said you were making a different argument because you originally talked about existing religions which isn't what my comment or the original comment was about, I stand by that - nothing of what you had said was relevant to my response.

You can't possibly know that it's over 99% unlikely that the universe isn't a simulation or that it wasn't created by some entity since we don't yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created. The statistic was pulled out of the air and has no scientific basis.

Do I think the universe is a giant Boltzmann brain or was created by an omniscient God? No, I don't, but it's still pointless to pretend it's something we can have any certainty about.

Not to be rude but this conversation isn't going anywhere, whether you don't understand or just don't agree, whatever I guess...

I understand your point and I feel like maybe I'm sounding a little argumentative. Sorry let me try to be more clear.

I understand your argument is that genetic evidence disproves existing religious beliefs that people have but that's a different argument to the point I was making.

Even if all global religions are incorrect, that doesn't mean that a god or gods couldn't hypothetically exist and my point is that there is no demonstrative proof of that either way.

If you check the original comment again, the question was about whether "a god(s) exist" and up until they mentioned the 99% that I was disputing, religion didn't even come into it.

You could disprove every creationist claim, every anti-evolution argument, and you'd be right, but you can't settle the question of "whether a supernatural being exists" because there simply isn't a way to do that within the natural realm that we know of.

It isn't just about God either. The simulation and Boltzmann brain hypotheses are similarly immeasurable

We're not talking about creationism or any particular brand of theism