There's also the idea that since the system "works" it shouldn't be changed. IIRC Le Guin did some stories on a place called Omelas that explored a similar idea: there's this utopian city, but they chuck a child down a hole to suffer there, which for some arcane reasons is deemed as necessary. Once people learn of this, they either accept it as indeed necessary or (rarely) leave.

A utopia only works if everyone thinks of the same thing as being a utopian society, which people generally just don't.

Counterpoint: If there's anyone who doesn't promote Windows and actively dislikes it, it's Windows users.

You might just have the wrong shape of glasses. I thought for years I had the right shape of glasses on my face, but as it turns out a different shape looked way better.

I suggest you look at someone else for reviews because this review is both inaccurate and somehow also blindingly stupid.

To be fair, the media usually does a real shit job of explaining it.

I've never had one of those actually work...

When there's no evidence proving or disproving something, it isn't logical to take sides.

That's not true. If the proposed is absurd, it's not logical to remain on the fence. The logical standpoint is to dismiss the claim until evidence is presented. Since no evidence was presented, the claim should be dismissed.

Theists weasel their way out of this by claiming you can't "prove" god, but that's a scientific error/logical fallacy. If something cannot be proven, it also cannot impact the world in any way, shape or form. At that point the question becomes entirely meaningless and should be dismissed as well, because god existing or not doesn't change anything anymore.

You seem a little stuck on the whole "knowing" part. Consider this: do you know if the sun is hot? Science knows it is, but do you? You could choose to believe in the scientific evidence, that still requires some "belief". After all, you've never actually touched the sun yourself. You know sunlight is hot on your skin, but can you infer from that that the sun itself must be hot? Maybe the invisible unicorn with a liver tumor is shining an invisible heat lamp on you when you stand in the sun. You can't prove this isn't the case, but you still know it's bullshit. You know the sun is hot.

You can believe that the universe was created by an invisible completely absent sky-daddy who demands worship that created Earth in particular because we're super-special in the universe, whose actions and values are perfectly encapsulated in insert-holy-book here, and obviously all those thousands of other holy books are complete nonsense. But to me, that notion is completely absurd. Therefore, I know that this isn't the case, just like I know how Earth isn't wrapped up in a giant snake, or how I know brains aren't doughnut-shaped, or how I know that tomorrow my legs will detach from my body, grow legs themselves and run a marathon.

Perhaps ask yourself this: what do you know? Why do you know it? Can you prove that at no point in your chain of evidence a secret azure pony hasn't messed with the evidence, or your memories, or anything else?

Your conclusion could be that you don't know anything. In that case, you should reevaluate what constitutes "knowing" something for yourself. Then you should reapply your new definition of "knowing" to the question of gods existence. I think you'll find it hard to come up with concrete reasons to treat that question differently from the other absurd hypotheticals I've listed. This lack of concrete reasons is why I know god does not exist. Otherwise, for me, "knowing" has no meaningful definition anymore.

That's fairly normal for any battery, regardless of charging rate. I have a OnePlus 9 and haven't really noticed any huge battery degradation, my phone still easily makes it to the end of the day.

And if not, I charge it for just a couple minutes and get half of the charge back. It's pretty great. The newest phones can even charge at 100W+. You barely need to bother plugging it in overnight, just plug it in when you take a shower or have breakfast or something.

I have bad news for you: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68110310

We're already there.

Wikipedia. Google Maps. The store of knowledge available from search engines. I use those all the time. You want to cut them off from that?

That's a bit overdramatic. Most kids have a laptop for schoolwork these days. I personally didn't get a smartphone until I started university, got a Samsung S7 then. I had no issues accessing any of those sources. These days I have a comp sci masters degree, so it definitely didn't "stunt" me in any way.

I read and certainly write way more text than I did in the pre-Internet era. Do you want kids reading and writing less?

Kids reading and writing skills appear to have been declining ever since the rise of the smartphone, so I doubt they're reading anything of sufficient quality to hone those skills a bit.

Schools here have recently mostly banned smartphones, and the kids seem happier for it and their grades and concentration in school is improving. Sound like positives to me.

As if Google doesn't already know.

Yesilgöz said she thinks a majority with the PVV leading is not possible. Without her, PVV won't be governing.