So Google has chosen a business model where they cannot patch the software they put out in the wild. And that makes them blameless how?

So you think art has no objective benefits? Back to your cave, Neanderthal!

The same reasoning holds for capitalism as worshiped by free market fundamentalists. There's a supernatural agency (the invisible hand of the market), both to suspends disbelief about actual human behaviour (who form cartels and monopolies to dismantle competition) and to explain why things aren't working as expected (all evil is caused by regulations). Checks all of the boxes as well.

The cell itself is an environment, and still far beyond our understanding. So yes, there's no way that we can control this with our current technology.

He's got a model that explains cancer based on faulty cell division. It is causative. He's crunched the numbers and found that his model explains 65% of occurrences of cancer. His model might still be wrong, but a 'correlation is not causation' critique is not applicable here.

Yes, but actually assigning instances of a deadly disease to bad luck rather than bad choices goes against the puritan heart of America, where everybody gets what they deserve, and no person that is well off should feel inclined to share any of the product of good luck with anyone else. Because, you know, they obviously made good choices, no bad ones. No luck involved.

Gauss also says that quantum mechanics is bollocks and we haven't found the true cause of non-determinism yet. But also there he is wrong.

So you're stating that in a world where PHP was not invented, Wikipedia would not have been created? Doubtful.

Depends on who pays for the locks. If there is a separate department that pays for the locks, then yes, that's a cost center. If it comes from the retail store's budget, then no, it is paid by the profit center. Being part of a profit center doesn't mean you don't have costs. Being part of a cost center doesn't mean you're not involved in profit.

Interesting evidence you bring to the table. So we have a prediction that increased tides induced by sea level rise will likely become very dangerous by 2050 for the bay area (up to half a meter of additional storm surge tide). An "underwater map" about what could happen in about 100 years from 1997 given a 1 meter sea level rise at the highest tide, and a professor that states that species will need to move to Canada if the temperature rises by about 2.5 degrees Celsius in 100 years.

Not sure if this truly supports your point, as this seems to be pretty consistent with what we're expecting to experience. Not 100% sure about the specifics of the Bay Area as that seems to be a bit on the high side, but could be an effect of the actual geography of the area.

I'm from Holland. It's pretty easy to obtain a gun if you really want to. But law-abiding citizens typically don't do this, because ... it's the law (duh).

By not having an arms-race, I'm not afraid being shot at by a burglar, because also they don't typically carry a gun.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that intruders carry a healthy arsenal of weaponry to survive a confrontation with an armed homeowner. It's the arms race that's not very healthy.

You don't understand how mail servers work, do you?

Your argument doesn't hold water. You state roughly that the Nazis are leftist because all totalitarians are leftist. And as Nazis are totalitarians they must be leftist.

You mix terms: you draw an opposite between 'totalitarian' and 'liberal', and you equate them to 'left' and 'right'. That doesn't work: the traditional 'left' versus 'right' divide is about those who believe in 'class equality' and those that believe in 'private property'. Both have totalitarian as well as liberal factions. Where the left have communists that are as totalitarian as it gets, the right have fascists and authoritarian factions that drive towards a totalitarian state. The US "democrat and republican party" being one example of such an authoritarian right wing faction.

The NAZI party was the NATIONAL Socialist GERMAN Workers PARTY. So per your argument, that's as right wing as it gets. All the NATIONAL parties of the history have been right wing. Left wing parties are typically INTERNATIONAL (their war-song is even called the "Internationale"), as their ideology is about class, not about nation.

So the name of the Nazis both appeal to extreme left wing, as well as extreme right wing. This is not a coincidence.

The rest of the AC's argument is as stupid and ill-informed.