Respectfully, I'm assuming a "vacation" here is a US-ism for what we in the UK would call a "holiday" (i.e. a recreational trip somewhere), I'm not sure if there are nuanced differences. To see as much as possible of the local culture is generally my aim, that's my main reason for travelling. I'm not saying that in a snooty "high culture" way at all, sometimes the most mundane cultural things can be the most interesting. Also to try the local cuisine. I like trains, so going to places I can explore by train are great - Interrailing around Europe have been some of my favourite trips. Also I did a great train trip around Japan pre-covid.
No, if it was unlimited, I should be able to pipe /dev/urandom to it for fun if that's what I choose to do. What's this about "gluttony"? They sold the service as that.
I remember in the 90s, my dial-up provider started offering an "unmetered" plan with no per minute charge (for younger people, believe it or not we were once charged by the minute for connecting to the internet). After a short while we were inundated with emails from the ISP complaining that people were "abusing the service" by going on the internet for "hours at a time". Just reminded me of this and how it's an old excuse.
No, you can't "abuse" an unlimited service by using too much, it's unlimited.
I was also, initially, a little bit confused with how this was being framed. I understand now having read it more closely, but on first reading of the line "The idea is to provide one more alternative – beside the Tor Network – to browse the internet with more privacy" because of the word "alternative" I thought you were suggesting it as a replacement for Tor.
I'm not familiar exactly with your posts, but I wouldn't necessarily assume the downvotes are for the reasons you think they are. Sometimes I'll downvote a post because I don't think it's relevant to the topic or that it's simply not interesting (and I really do view it merely as a vote, nothing personal). Then the OP will sometimes respond with "I can't believe I was downvoted because of x, y, z" where x, y, z really had nothing to do with the downvote. If I disagree, I try to upvote because it's on-topic and reply with my disagreement (which I have just done right now).
Those are questions of metaphysics, and you're right they can't be answered by science. But you have to ask yourself, if they can't be answered by science, that is they can't be measured or falsified, then what meaning do they really have? If you think of an unknowable, non-interventional god, their existence is the same to us as not existing, so it has no meaning. Same with any meanings of life, or questions about whether we live in a simulation perhaps, anything you can't measure is just a story essentially, until you can measure it.
When I was religious (I'm not any more) that was something that never actually troubled me. I believed that god was benevolent but that suffering must be necessary in ways that we humans can't conceive of. Who were we to question the grander plan?
Since science is deductive it's probably impossible to prove the negative there, but I think there's enough evidence beyond reasonable doubt that you can confidently deny it (unless your god is non-falsifiable, in which case it's not worth discussion).
Sure but Loch Ness is on the 3rd most populated island in the world, it's comprehensively explored, there's nothing newsworthy to say about it unless there was a vast oversight and that would be the head line, not the "monster".
What a lovely, humble thing to say, thank you.