The national agencies evaluates the complain and take a decision, which I hope will happen before the end of the year. Exactly how it happens depends on the country, as the GDPR leaves room for national legislation also on the section on the Supervisory authority.
I'd say if you put it on a indoor table, a measly cubic centimetre of sand can make a (small) pile, and a random estimate on the internet states that there are 8000 grains of sand in a cubic centimetre.
What you are describing is what must be done when one embarks on a project of literary study.
If you just want a story, which is what almost all readers actually read for, just read it as it is, and if doesn't make any sense you are perfectly entitled to think it was a shitty book.
Frankly I think a (fiction) book must always be able to be read as-is, unsupported by outside means, else it is no longer a book.
(You hear that Greg Egan?! You wrote a really bad text book or a pretty good fiction book with pointless homework included every now and then.)
GDPR applies to "natural persons", which I think mostly excludes animals (I base this on us killing animals all the time and it doesn't count as murder).
That's a novel claim, usually security experts are always complaining that people just click "accept" and ignore all the warnings of broken crypto and all that. How foolish they will feel when they realize that all that was missing was putting "GDPR" in the popup and people will automatically stop ignoring warnings!
If EU citizens go to the Chinese to give up their rights they are probably giving their consent, but good luck providing any sort of service to EU citizens without actually having a legal presence inside the union.
It's not really mistakes that is the issue though, its more the fact that they got reeeeelly close to outright fabrication.
They had a very shaky estimate of an important background (the foreground) and instead of being cautious they put out a video like this as part of the announcement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlfIVEy_YOA
Go read Hossenfelder's review instead, its a better teardown. The fourth paragraph is:
> “Losing the Nobel Prize” is well written and engaging and has a lot of figures and, ah, here I run out of nice things to say. But we all know you didn’t come for the nice things anyway, so let’s get to the beef.
I don't know how to estimate their reckless from the outside, but it is simple fact that however sensitive, they only had one waveband and so no real way of estimating the foreground contamination. I think it is also well established that the foreground estimation was made by looking closely at pictures from a presentation showing preliminary Planck skymaps of the dust emission, and then building a foreground model from that.
You got a vote, in exchange I want 10% of all your karma for the next year, or your account password retain the possibility of "correcting" the growth path of your account.
Also: shit, you're penniless, why did I invest? Whyy?
It's written by someone more interested in conveying truth than hyping a null result, so it even mentions a woman was involved in inventing it! (rather than the copywriter who instead just mentions the man that gave it a name).