The fact that you cannot play without sharing your scores tells me it's doing more than just that.

I never said it was okay to lie to people, only that it's an important skill to develop to be able to distinguish trusted sources from untrusted sources. If you think we can just solve the problem by somehow magically eliminating lies, then you are naive. I would not include doctors, pharmacists, or drug companies on a list of trusted sources wholesale. That's being a bit too coarse-grained about it. Trusting all doctors without any thought is just silly. Same goes for any group really.

I do not have an answer like "trust X" that works for every situation. That should be pretty obvious. All I can say is that it takes a bit more critical reading and thinking to determine what to believe and how to react. It is those skills I am advocating, not wholesale trust in any one person or organization for not everyone will give you the truth for a myriad of reasons, some malicious, some self-serving, and some naive.

I can.

The most important skill one can learn is to evaluate the quality of a source. We cannot all be experts on everything, but we can learn to identify experts. Where did the money come from? Where was the information first published? What do other experts, preferably ones you know personally, think about the topic? Is there a little studying you can do that would improve your conversation with the expert or reading of the material?

Obviously one cannot be sure all the time, but just putting a little thought into these kinds of issues will go a long way in helping one make informed choices. This goes for more than just children's safety.

The real trouble is that we've gotten to the point where science has been demonized and all that matters to most people is how they "feel", which opens them up to having their emotions played with and FUD campaigns succeed.

The browser market might not be the most lucrative, but there is some return on one's investment.

The question did not ask about net change, but the number written. Deleting a line does not change the count of lines written, only the net lines remaining.

Arithmetic fail, forty-six.

No. If the question asked for net change in lines of code in the source, that'd be a whole different question. If I write fifty lines and delete four, I still wrote fifty lines, not forty-seven.

Or to put it differently, if zero is of particular interest, making it so that an unknown portion of the people who wrote zero lines of code do not choose another option is probably worth a little more precision in the second answer.

No, but if some portion of the people answered zero and some portion answered less than 100 then one's data is misleading. While it is an informal poll, to be certain, it does not take a terrible amount of thought to at least make it considerably more information with a proper formulation of the choices.

Why would one need a negative answer? The question did not ask the net change in lines of code in your source, only for the count of lines you write. Deleting a line is not writing a line. If I asked you how many emails you received yesterday I wouldn't expect you to tell me -10 because the number of emails in your inbox had a net change of -10.

It's a pretty simple question. How many lines of code did you write. Clearly, removing lines is not writing lines, generated code is not code you wrote, and comments are not executable. It did not ask your net change in the number of lines in the source files or anything like that.

You are an immortal in a MUD and over the prior 24 hours you have:

1) Created five new rooms. How many rooms have you created in the prior 24 hours? Five.
2) Created seven new rooms, destroyed three old rooms. How many rooms have you created in the prior 24 hours? Seven.
3) Created four new rooms, destroyed seventeen. How many rooms have you created in the prior 24 hours? Four.
4) Created zero new rooms, destroyed four old rooms. How many rooms have you created in the prior 24 hours? Zero.

I don't see how creating lines of code should be counted any differently. The question did not ask for net change in lines of code, just how many news ones you've written.

Surely if you are worried about speed of switching tabs, you've not let your hand leave the keyboard and use either hotkeys or the awesomebar to switch tabs, in which case it matters not where they are. I can type meta-D and the first few letters of a tab and enter faster than I can move my mouse to and from the mouse, let alone move it.

Do you also never get up during commercial breaks in ad-supported televisions shows lest you feel a pang of guilt that you stole?

Here's how HTTP works:

1) My browser, an agent on my behalf, requests a document on my behalf from you.
2) Your server, an agent on your behalf, returns to me the document data.
3) My browser parses the document, choosing to run or not run code that is included in your document as well as load or not load referenced elements in the document. For a variety of reasons, I may or may not be interested in requesting all referenced documents.

How is choosing not to download all supporting documents stealing the one document that I requested and you gave me?

Chaos would ensue if if wasn't allocated. Because as a society we need to agree what we're using what parts for, government is the natural choice. The problem where though, is that the power shifted from the people via the government to just the government. In essence, we all own it, and we've elected some people to make a sane process of deciding how to use it but those people stopped acting in our interested and instead became greedy and we're too jaded to get uppity and change it.