LwL

That's... not the same as being aro at all. It doesn't mean you feel nothing towards anyone. Just that you're not interested in romantic relationships at all.

Using it sometimes sure. It's sometimes better than google at giving me answers, and it's great at troubleshooting dumb mistakes (or processing large amounts of code for things like security issues, but I don't do that).

I also have little doubt that ML as a whole will reshape the world much like the WWW did - we do have an awful lot of compute now that could be used for more useful ML applications. But as it's going, I doubt LLM's will go much further. More and more people are seeing past the insane promises and realize they're tools for some specific jobs, particularly once the pricing adjusts the use cases will likely be quite narrow.

Tenet?

I also didn't think it was that confusing. It was at first, while it was meant to be, but it explained enough that I could understand roughly what went on by the end. Maybe people don't like not understanding everything perfectly. Though I also don't remember people hating it, so maybe different movie.

Cats do too if they can go outside. They don't really like shitting in their own living space.

Most places have laws on this. Often, it is legal to film/take photos, but not to focus on individuals.

That's the thing really, I use "bro" gender neutrally all the time (though in a rare instance of treating transwomen differently I'll avoid it if I know someone is transfem, because that's just asking for misunderstandings). If anyone asked me to not refer to them that way I'll just say oh ok sorry I won't on the future, it's gender neutral to me I didn't mean to misgender you.

All of this, all the pronoun discussions, people insisting on deadnames, is the same as reading someones name on an ID, calling them that, and them telling you they don't like that name and please use a different name (even when it's just a nickname and nothing gender related). If you don't accept their preference, you're just an asshole. You don't need to walk on eggshells, you just need to do a bare minimum of thinking and most importantly listen to people.

I don't have a single peripheral that uses USB-C. I have a lot of USB-A and some micro-USB.

My phone is USB-C and that's about it. Given that my 2 year old PC case has 8 USB-A connectors and 1 USB-C connector, I'd also wager keyboards and mice won't stop being USB-A anytime soon. There's just no reason for them to be anything else.

But is that blueprint dependent on hormone levels? Maybe wolverine would just rapidly grow a full female reproductive system and boobs on HRT, which then would mean that to revert, masculinizing HRT would be needed.

Itasha wraps are niche enough that they're usually custom made, including the art.

Easing local control is what that law was about (and it did think far enough to only include user facing). If there wasn't a global tendency to move towards surveillance and identity verification I'd be all for it. As it is I have some reservations about slippery slope.

The law doesn't require identity verification. It requires the OS to provide the age group of the user (set at install) to programs running on the OS. Something that, if adopted widely, would immensely help with allowing parents to control access (i.e. if they decide their kid should be able to see everything, just put them in ths age group for that, similarly they could also do that and manage it the same way as they would now. Or if they're lazy as many parents sadly are, there is at least some enforcement of age control that someone thought about, without giving up any identifying info beyond an age group). Yes it could be circumvented somewhat easily, but as far as I see it that's always a feature. A child being exposed to something accidentally has very different implications than actively trying to access it.

Money is fundamentally made up. It's whatever the other party is willing to accept as a token that they trust will in turn be accepted by someone else they want a service or item from. Fiat currency just has its backing from being used in transactions with the state.

It also follows that the total value of global money is entirely dependent on people's trust in it. The nominal value of global money supply, whether it is 1 quintillion USD or 100 trillion USD, doesn't directly affect the worth I, or anyone else, ascribe to having 1 USD myself. It's the things that I perceive myself to be able to trade that 1 USD for that do.

What I'm trying to say is that the philosophical idea you're looking for might be more along the lines of "how much of their own resources (time and belongings) is the combined global populace willing to trade for a promise of trading it for someone else's resources in the future".

If I'm interpreting the text at the bottom correctly, that's only the amount that actually had to be paid back because of a court decision. So basically the amount that was actually proven. The real number is bound to be much higher.