Wrong. At least according to a popular theory which you are too stupid to understand.

1. People claiming to want to study opposing viewpoints are a dime a dozen.

2. Atypical people don't matter anyway.

3. The revenue generated from ads, normalized by adblocking people, is so little that most people would be limited by time to view all the material rather than the money to pay for it. Except for badly scaling pricing models - but when bad models are assumed, any number of things can wrong, viewpoint bubbles are the least of worries.

Come on! These are movie people. They might call Bruce Willis to deal with a hostage situation.

1. Human psyche isn't amenable to looking at things disagreeing with them. Any system evolved / used by humans will have that problem. Even without internet.org / zero / facebook / lots of paid websites - most people live in their own bubble.

2. Even without internet.org/zero - facebook already puts you into your own bubble. Things similar to those you like are shown more. There is no dislike button for similar deliberate purposes. Facebook blames this on users, but they know that showing you things that you like is a good way to keep you coming back for more.

3. In effect you are saying paid websites would "put viewers in a bubble where they're unwilling to look at a site with opposing viewpoints", whereas without the paid websites they are already in the same bubble. I don't see a difference.

It is not disagreement when straw men are being invoked in your every post.

You refuse to try to understand any of my posts in this thread . Expected, since you hang out on Slashdot.

You say so, you might even believe it. But it is highly misinformed according to many Muslims I know, and also according to a much more popular interpretation of "La ilaha illillah". Allah is NOT god.

I am not saying that by cancelling they become non-religious. Each individual religious group remains religious.

I am saying that popular disbelief* of Muslims in god makes belief in god wrong. And popular disbelief in Allah by Christians makes Allah wrong according the the wisdom of the crowds.

And by disbelief I don't mean merely indifference. If it were merely indifference, it would not cancel the other group's belief. But they are warned strongly against "false gods" in their gospels and by leaders. I mean active disbelief and denial.

Email? Instant Messenger? Issue tracker with email/SMS notifications? Phone?

Whatsapp? If Wuthering Heights can be played in semaphore, surely people creating software should be able to find a method to communicate?

Can any one give a reason for the graph being r-theta, or polar coordinate graph? This would have worked fine in a regular cartesian, or an X-Y graph.

Not really.

My life definitely took an upturn in late twenties and thirties. Yet I hate most of today's music. My teenage music had both good and bad music according to my present self ~40.

Best music was from 15-50 years before I was born - survival bias definitely plays a role there.

Geeks are stereotypically bullied in their teenage, and then earn better than their bullies - or so the tale goes, though that is not my story. If this has any truth, many slashdotters be similar.

Something fitting in maximum supported size of a database does not mean that performance of data manipulation with the database will meet the business criteria in the available budget.

OK, let me put it this way. Many Muslims do NOT believe in "god" - "La ilaha illillah". There is no god but Allah. Believing in "god" gets you a reserved place in hell.

No I don't say that at all. In fact the reason why they believe in god doesn't matter for this statement at all. I'm saying they believe mutually incompatible things, so "wisdoms of the crowds" are canceling each other.

The "problem" in halting problem is that the "language" should be Touring complete. Otherwise either there is no halting "problem", or it can be said that the problem has been solved in 1930s and 1940s. So Coq "solves" it, by not being Touring complete i.e. there was no problem in the first place for 50 years when Coq was invented.

SQL has existed for a longer time, and is a much better known non-Touring complete, halting problem "solved" language.

You didn't answer the question "Please tell me the living thing that is better at programming than human beings."

You made up another question and answered it - doing a "programming task" that "can be precisely defined".

So groups of humans remain the best known programming machines - where programming is defined as repeatably solving real world problems with computers. Which is what a vast majority of programmers do.