That logic is flawed. Just because we don’t understand why there is something rather than nothing, there is no logical implication that there could be a higher being. “Coincidence” would seem to be a much more likely reason (until/if we understand why) - much like coincidence being the reason for most (all?) observed miracles
Elon Musk: “Hold my beer”
Also,
It is indeed. Main consequence of this is that if you join a new or small instance, you will see less of the fediverse without actively seeking it
By that logic, how do you learn to talk? Before you understand language, no one can explain the meaning of words to you.
I imagine this happens the same way. You “bootstrap” language by introducing a few touch signs and go from there.
GDPR is great, but it would probably not apply to posts and comments as it pertains to personal data (name, address). User provided content is not generally personal data as per GDPR (though might contain some). Positing personal data is even explicitly disallowed in most subs.
One could argue they need to delete username, although it is in principle arbitrary, but they could be allowed to keep post/comment content. And this already happens as part of account deletion.
On top of this, users agreed to transferring rights when accepting TOS:
“When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works of, distribute, store, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world.”
Source: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/user-agreement/
Don’t confuse this with me liking what Reddit is doing, it’s a douchebag move, so we have all the reasons to distrust Reddit and be angry. I’m just trying to add nuance to the issue.
Obligatory IANAL
Not at all. There is a huge difference in proving a positive (i.e. that God exists) than prooving a negative (i.e. that God is IMPOSSIBLE).
EXAMPLE: Could Trump be a lizard alien in a skin suit as some might believe? Absolutely. Am I gnostic by stating in a matter of fact tone that he isn’t (and thus dependant on “faith” by extension of your argument? Probably not.
Just because someone once made a wild claim about God existing, doesn’t make me require “faith” to call out he obviously made up story with absolutely zero facts to back it as such.