Billions of invertebrates and other small animals are killed during tilling before planting, with pest/weed control during the growing season (even with "organic" or "natural" compounds), and of course during harvest.

This is inevitable, farming requires controlling soil and plants, and this will inevitably kill animals that you don't even see. Do you really think you can flood a rice paddy without killing countless mesofauna?

Fishing/hunting also kills animals, but you can catch a fish or hunt a deer without restructuring an entire ecosystem. Which means you can feed yourself without killing quite so many animals.

Well if you put it that way, then I guess animal cruelty isn't as bad as we thought.

I doubt it was much of an added expense. The search was carried out by Coast Guard and Navy personnel, who would be getting paid regardless.

If the sub hadn't gone missing, it's quite likely their time and resources would have been spent on practicing some sort of rescue mission.

If you are a simulation, then your choice doesn't matter. You will never get any real benefit from the boxes. It's like saying, "there is also a finite possibility that the machine is lying and all the boxes are empty". In which case, the choice is again irrelevant.

Situations in which your choice doesn't matter are not worth considering. Only the remaining possibility, that you are not a simulation and the machine is not lying, is worth considering.

Regardless of whether the machine is right, if you don't believe it can perfectly predict what you'll do then taking both boxes is always better than just one.

It's much easier if you reframe the problem:

Someone says they've built a machine that can perfectly predict what you will do. Do you believe them?

If so, take one box.
If not, take both boxes.

True, but it's important to note that personal data means identifiers such as name, date of birth, location, etc. Comments on a blog, by themselves, are not personal data.

This is a good article on whether non-EU websites have to obey the GDPR. It boils down to two criteria:

If your business is offering goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the EU

or

If your business monitors the behavior of EU citizens and their behavior takes place within the union.

The latter includes use of advertising cookies, location tracking, etc.

If neither of those apply, you can probably ignore the GDPR.

The Trans-Atlantic Data Privacy Framework (and subsequent executive orders) protect the EU citizens from misuse of their data by US law enforcement and intelligence communities.

They do not give EU citizens any rights concerning data held only by private companies, apart from the rights all Americans already have.

That agreement concerns use of EU data by the US government itself (ie the intelligence community and law enforcement).

It does not give EU citizens any opportunity to enforce claims against US companies in US courts.

There is no treaty. And the GDPR is not "law" in the US. You cannot sue a company for damages in the US like in the EU.

However, there is an executive order that allows you to file a complaint if you think your privacy rights have been violated.

You can find a good explainer here.

Incorrect.

The current data agreement between the US and EU is neither a law nor a treaty. It is an executive order, which means it did not pass through Congress and simply reflects the policy of the current administration. Like any other executive order, it could be ignored or overturned by a subsequent administration.

Furthermore, it does not mean "GDPR is actually the law in the US". It means that the current US administration will cooperate in enforcing certain privacy rights against US law enforcement and the intelligence community. It does not give EU citizens the same rights they have in the EU under the GDPR. For example, it does not allow private individuals to sue US companies for damages in US courts.