There are plenty of women who are not like that, in fact they are the vast majority I believe, I hope you end up finding them. You may have to look in different places or with a different mindset. A first step would be to not waste your time with anyone who feels entitled to you buying them food or drinks. Start on a basis of equality and independence, and you won't have to deal with entitlement. Of course the people you meet this way will have no patience for any form of entitlement coming from you either, fair is fair.

It seems like you are conflating "AI" with "LLMs". I think it's a mistake. There are better AI tools than LLMs for pricing.

Does TFA say that this is LLM-powered? I didn't find such a statement, maybe I glanced too fast. I would find it surprising that they use an LLM for that. Pricing is generally an optimisation problem, LLMs are not very good at optimisation. "How much is a person willing to pay" is a prediction problem and there's also algorithms better and cheaper than LLMs for that.

The keyword is "overreliance". That automatically makes it a human mistake, not an AI mistake, because the humans choose how much they rely on the tool.

The Rust version is licensed under the MIT license, in case anyone was wondering. The Ubuntu Discourse post says the change is not about licensing, but about security. What it does not provide is any kind of statistic on security issues related to coreutils.

It's weird mental gymnastics to call a union a "labor monopoly" to support drawing a false equivalence. Monopolies are generally disliked, not just by D people, because they prevent free competition, which is a staple of US economic and social policy. It's about protecting consumers and entrepreneurs. A union is about protecting workers. Both anti-monopoly laws and labour unions are about protecting people from nefarious effects of a completely unregulated market. The fact that the same people who want to have a monopoly also hate unions should tell you something.

This will not happen. Apple and Android do not want to abandon whole markets to competitors, they want to dominate these markets. This is a weird fantasy that keeps popping up, usually from people who are proud of being from the US and champion a weird understanding of freedom of expression and freedom of choice. Apple and Android are not interested in freedom; they want your money, brain bandwidth, and everybody else's. Give it to them in a totalitarian society and they will happily take it.

America is not a country.

Let's put the motivation aside for a minute. Have you asked yourself "at what cost"?

I don't know about you, personally I have never voted for someone I fully agreed with on every issue. Voting is more of a "lesser of two evils" situation. Are you really fine with the whole descent into fascism, rampant corruption, degradation of public health, nepotism, degradations of cost of living, etc? Is it all a fair price to pay for whatever you perceive the benefit to be?

Competing for what's a harder issue to deal with is fucking stupid when all need help. The people in your family clearly have a very hard life. But I don't understand why you leap from that to somewhat attaching trans folks. If it were so easy to be trans, they wouldn't have record suicide rates and a whole assortment of mental health issues. There is no need to belittle other people's needs, and there is no merit to it either.

Is it premature to call it unnecessary and with no clear stated goal or benefit for the US?

Is it premature to remind you that Trump campaigned on "no more wars"?

In case that helps: I'm not part of the "same people" you mention, I have not done what you describe.

Why does everybody seem to be fine with the fact that they are allowed to lie to you? Are we allowed to lie to them? Do these people not have to take an oath before they can start assuming their duties?

I mean, kids used to learn how to extract a square root with pen and paper, then calculators came, now we wouldn't ask in a test how to extract a square root any more. New tools mean we learn different things and the content of tests and exams changes. To be very clear, I'm not saying "this is fine". But I don't think that the general argument that students lose certain knowledge due to a new tool is necessarily cause for alarm, as long as it also creates opportunities to learn new things.

This is beside the point. You should rather ask about what we would think if selling cigarettes to kids was allowed.

If the outcome is some flavour of "cost of doing business" then it's a win for Meta: they can keep on preying and profiting. What society needs is for them to stop doing that.