No mountain dew shrinks your balls (it’s true)

Yeah of course it’s more nuanced than that, but enough of an explanation for someone who doesn’t know what there’s actually displayed

Those “medals” are how well the game works on proton. Platinum is comparable to Windows or better, gold is still pretty damn good, and so on.

I personally love cool tech, that’s it. It’s not even about the convenience but “oh shit bro you see what this shit can do???” -kinda thing. It’s cool

What I don’t love is some asshole corporation stealing and abusing that data for their profits or handing it to the pigs

Judging sources for the information requires way less knowledge. To continue your analogy, for most people it’s obvious to take your medical advice from your family doctor instead of that crazy aunt in Facebook

Yeah “legitimate interest” seem to be abused a lot

Copypasting here answer to similar question in superuser.com

https://superuser.com/a/1624773

Under GDPR there are 6 grounds based on which anybody can process personal data. Those are:

• Consent

  You explicitly agreeing to it. This needs to be opt-in, informed, specific and freely given, but also gives the greatest freedom to a company.

• Contract

  This is the basis which raj’s answer confused with legitimate interests. This is the processing that is required to fulfil a contractual obligation (note that contracts do not always need to be signed, e.g. an order from an eshop).

  need to process someone’s personal data:

  • to deliver a contractual service to them; or
  • because they have asked you to do something before entering into a contract (eg provide a quote).

  Source: ico.org.uk

• Legal obligation

• Vital interests

• Public task

• Legitimate interests

  Legitimate interests are the most flexible lawful basis for processing personal data. In the words of the UK’s ICO 1:

  It is likely to be most appropriate where you use people’s data in ways they would reasonably expect and which have a minimal privacy impact, or where there is a compelling justification for the processing.

  Source: ico.org.uk (worth reading!!!)

  The underlying text from the GDPR itself (definitions and links added are mine)

  processing is necessary for the purposes [=a specific minimal type of processing] of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller [=the company wanting to process your data] or by a third party except where such interests are overridden by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject [=you] which require protection of personal data, in particular where the data subject is a child.

  Source: GDPR Article 6(1f)

  So basically a legitimate interest claim by a company is them saying ‘we are convinced that our interest outweigh the negligible impact on the privacy of the people whose data we process’. This doesn’t give them a free pass though, as GDPR also gives the right to object

  The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her which is based on point [public interest] or [legitimate interest] of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions.

  Source: GDPR Article 21(1)

  Which then require the company to either concede and stop the processing or justify their claim. Companies in practise have taken this to mean they can basically just do a bunch of processing and as long as they make the objection process (=opt-out) easy enough the theory is that they will get away with it.

Notes:

1 The UK left the EU, but they still have by far the best English language resource explaining GDPR and for the time being “UK GDPR” matches “EU GDPR” one on one as far as I am aware

Until there is an actual explanation you can say its been “proven billions of times”

All the evidence we have supports evolution theory

No one is handwaving away problems we are yet to solve, except the people just claiming “must have been gods”

There has always been and probably always will be new problems to solve. Scientists have been working on trying to understand and resolve those problems, and we know so much more today than we did 100 years ago. We take evolution theory as a fact, because it’s the theory that has been proven billions of times again and again, and we keep finding more proof for it. Just because we might not know everything yet, is not an argument against the only working theory we have.

Your Christ illusion has been proven zero times

Opinions are opinions. Opinions don’t change the fact that earth is orbiting the sun or that religions are a hoax

The way I have heard it explained is that before the big bang there was nothing.

It’s more like what happened before big bang has no consequences to what happened after. Because this, we have little idea what happened before because there’s no direct evidence.

Because science tries to understand the unknown using reason, religion throws the reason away and says it was gods.

Evolution theory DOES explain where we came from, and the theory is proven billion times over and over. It’s insanity to believe anything else. As Dawkins neatly put it, we have more evidence for evolution theory than we have for Holocaust.

but most atheists are aware of this or just handwave away the problem.

No, ‘atheists’ do not handwave problems found in scientific theories away but study it until it’s no longer a problem. What religion does is just says “it must be gods” and throws any reason to thrash bin

Yep, but we have tool for trying to understand it. It’s called scientific method, and it has so far been able to help us understand the mechanics of the universe without resorting to crazy claims such as “yeah must have been super powered aliens”, which is the only offer from religion.

I do get that there’s a chance that it’s all bogus, and that there really is or was a god that created everything in a way we have been able to measure it, but why exactly should I believe it? Which story should I believe? ‘In this world of a million religions everyone prays the same way’, the same human made stories written over centuries trying to explain the world around us. In this context religion seems nothing more than a predecessor to scientific method turned into crowd control tool.

Growing up in religious circles I kinda learned that there’s no good in religion. Surely there’s good religious people, but they spread the evil word the same as those who want to bring the oppressive shit onto others.

Religion has never been good for anything but for controlling masses

Yeah man something about Russell’s tea pot

We have no evidence for gods, that’s it. There’s no need to provide evidence for absence of god, the burden of proof belongs to the person who makes the claim (that there’s a god/gods).

No, it was supposed to be a single movie, “Star Wars”, but due to the success of it they started working on further movies.

No, Kevin

Thank you friend<3