I’m… Not really sure what your question is. What do you mean by your laptop “fitting in the community?”

? You’re saying exactly the same thing I am. I was giving a definition, not an example. Admittedly confusing since I used the (real) word in its own (slang) definition.

No, “aesthetic” is generally just a noun, historically. As in “it has a modern/minimalist/cyberpunk aesthetic.” Its usage as an adjective just means “relating to the general idea of aesthetics as a field of study,” or “someone with a strong sense of and attunement to the design and beauty of things.” Using it to just mean “beautiful,” basically, is a new usage in just the last 5 years or less.

Using it as an adjective, to mean “has a pleasing aesthetic.”

I mean… Babies and small children don’t “choose” what language to learn, they just pick up whatever’s spoken regularly around them. So whatever their families and community speak, same as everyone else?

can it? Sure, most any arrangement of bits can be converted into some kind of Unicode text. Can it be converted to something meaningful or readable? No, some formats are plain text (.txt, .ini, .json, .html for some random examples) that are meant to be read by humans, and others are binary formats that are only meaningful when decoded by a computer into specific data structures inside a piece of software.

I’m sure some parents use it as a substitute to avoid saying “son of a bitch” in front of their kids, if that helps

Sure, I mean pretty much by definition. What does that have to do with your question?

Are you under the impression that they don’t?

Well, yeah. That’s not really in the same category or ever really disputed

No, that’s my evidence that it wasn’t ubiquitous and typical.

Maybe not just your social circle, but social-circle-specific.

No, this was just your social circle. I know literally zero people who ever bought into any of that crap

Yes, your aunt has (probably) signed up for what’s essentially a scam. This is their whole business model, they know timeshares sound better than they end up being, so they intentionally trick people into signing contracts that are very difficult to get out of, so they can’t just dump it the moment they realize they don’t want it anymore.

Like others have mentioned, there are various options (donations/sponsorships/grants) that larger projects will generally have some of, but for smaller projects (99% of what’s out there, by project count if not usage), the answer is simply “it isn’t.” It’s done as a hobby, as a resume booster, or with the hope of eventually becoming big enough to hit one of those revenue streams.

That’s… An extremely bizarre take on what happened, and on whether selling would be a good idea. The stock market almost never has anything to do with electoral politics, and electoral politics almost never have anything to do with what your market position should be.

Not that you’re going to get any kind of constructive discussion here regardless, but it’s worth noting that “liberal” in the US means something very different in the rest of the world (what we’d call “neoliberal” or globalist) and I don’t really know which one you mean

I don’t think of either of them as having any specific regional accent at all. I think they just have somewhat similar voices and mannerisms

I almost hesitate to bring up the other problems with your plan since, obviously the total monstrosity of it. But that’s anyway pretty well covered so I’ll just throw in that blowing enough nukes to kill that many people would create considerably worse environmental disaster

Everyone is talking about dominant and recessive genes, so I just want to clarify a couple things.

The way your body directly uses genes is as a blueprint to construct proteins. Your cells are always producing proteins from the genes in all your chromosomes. It has complex ways of regulating how much of each it produces, but your body doesn’t care what chromosome it’s coming from. Once an embryo is fertilized, there’s really no distinction between “mom” chromosomes or “dad” chromosomes, as far as the embryo and its protein machinery are concerned.

“Dominant” and “recessive” characterization is about how those proteins affect your body at the macro scale, not whether your body actually uses the gene and produces its proteins – it always does that. For example, brown hair is a dominant trait, and blonde is recessive. But this is because producing any amount of brown pigment will make your hair brown, regardless of what other pigments you’re making, simply because it’s darker. Literally the same as combining blonde and brown paint. It has nothing to do with whether the genes are actually being expressed – the brown hair gene doesn’t stop the blonde hair gene from making its pigments.

Perhaps “always-on display” is clearer? Keeps it from turning off when idle