Yes and the definitions of male and female have long ago been agreed by every language and culture around the world. If you want to go and start creating new definitions with their own meaning go right ahead, but don't try to change the established definitions that people have agreed on for thousands of years. All that does is cause confusion.

Yes there are some born blind due to genetic mutations, again this is not normal. During normal foetal development there will be 2 functioning eyes.

Also many blind people have suffered from external causes, not genetic mutations.

Also do you accept that someone blind is handicapped? So surely someone with mutated chromosomes is similarly handicapped. Or are you saying that we should normalise blindness, and allow people to voluntarily blind themselves?
Or would you say that someone who wanted to voluntarily blind themselves is mentally ill?

Well what is the divorce rate for gay male couples?

How many fingers do humans have?
How many legs do humans have?
etc etc...

The base case is 2 sexes, 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, 2 legs, 2 arms, 2 eyes etc. The fact that anomalous mutations exist is known and accepted, but these are absolutely anomalous mutations that have disrupted the normal development process. During normal healthy development of a foetus these mutations should not occur, and more severe mutations can easily result in miscarriage.

There are also conjoined twins, people born with extra or missing/dysfunctional body parts etc. This is not indicative of the species as a whole, but are random mutations caused by various factors.

Knowledge does not come from university alone, it can also be built from years of experience. In fact, when it comes to technology which rapidly changes the experience is more valuable than what you learned 30 years ago in class.

Companies already produce more than half their chips using subpar technologies. It's called having a product "range". You don't need the latest technology to produce the lowend products, which also tend to make up the bulk of sales volume.

Also this restriction is only for products sold in the US, and foreign companies selling in the US are subject to even greater restrictions. Products sold by US companies to foreign markets are not subject to this at all so it's making US companies more competitive domestically, and has no effect on their competitiveness in foreign markets.

What is the sales breakdown for a company like AMD?
I would imagine that sales of the cutting edge parts are a tiny niche catering to enthusiasts and tech companies.

Even a highend computer has a number of support chips which don't need to be fabbed on the latest process.

Sales of mid to low range equipment are MUCH higher than the top models. Most users don't buy the cutting edge equipment, they buy in the sweet spot of the price/performance curve. Corporate bulk purchases also do the same - either looking for the best price/performance ratio, or just going for cheap. Only a tiny subset of the market is willing to pay 50% more $ for 10% more performance.

Intel are behind TSMC sure, but not so far behind. They can easily manufacture these second tier parts that make up the bulk of the market. Intel themselves are using TSMC for their small niche highend chips while manufacturing their mass market products themselves.

AMD can probably comfortably produce 95% of their products on a second tier process node. For the 5% of highend products that need to be fabbed by TSMC the target market are willing to pay a premium so they can afford to pay the tariffs.

You only need the top fab for the high end chips, but those chips also sell in relatively small numbers.

There are also millions of lowend processors sold every year. Most people don't buy cutting edge computers, especially the large fleets of corporate machines. Then there are all the support chips and embedded controllers.

Having a second tier fab, especially one that is not subject to import tariffs is extremely useful for a large number of product lines.

It probably would, the current government is early in their term and doing the things that will be unpopular now in the hope that people will forget about them by the time of the next election. If they hold an election immediately it's quite likely that reform would win.

The UK is basically a two party system same as the US, and as you say they've just kept flipping between the two parties who are both doing largely the same thing.

Clearly people are waking up to this fact, because now there's a third party (reform) which is starting to see serious vote share. They are now pretty much the only alternative to the status quo, so a large number of people are going to vote for them.

A dictatorship is obvious so people get sick of it quickly.
A two party system can pretend to offer people a choice, so it takes a lot longer for people to get sick of it.
When they do get sick of it, the alternative that pops up and gains mindshare tends to be on the extreme side.

Abstention is a vote of "i dont care either way". Those who wanted to maintain the status quo voted to remain.

In addition to that, the main opposition party in Ukraine has also agreed not to hold an election until the war is over.

Holding an election during an active war when 20% of the country is occupied is extremely difficult, and dangerous.

Those stuck in occupied territory don't get to vote at all? Or how do they vote? How can you be sure their vote is not coerced by the enemy?
Do POWs held by the enemy not get to vote?
How do you arrange voting for serving soldiers - especially those on the front line?
People are expected to gather at polling stations, how do you prevent polling stations becoming the targets of missile/drone attacks?
How do you prevent the enemy from trying to influence or infiltrate the election?
Holding an election diverts important resources away from defense.

Holding an election during war is a bad idea. Zelenskyy has already agreed to an election when the war is over or there is a ceasefire, and he has stated he doesn't intend to stand.

That's exactly what happens when you try to control a country where a good proportion of the population are against you, while you're trying to protect civilians.
You end up with asymmetric warfare where the insurgents hide amongst the civilian population, and no matter how strong your military is you will never be able to eliminate them all.
Traditionally occupying militaries would have taken a brutal approach - systematically execute civilians until the attacks stop. It's pretty much the only way that works, but in modern times countries are afraid of the international condemnation if they try this.

You can draw parallels with Israel and Hamas. Hamas have been hiding amongst civilians for years and Israel has not been able to get them all. Every few years things flared up and there were attacks. Now they're stepping up their response because that's the only way they're ever going to deal with the problem.

Upcoming? The iPhone 16e was released last year. These are schematics for a phone that has been out for a year.

The problem with this document's release is that it's technical information that was supposed to be kept confidential forever.

I'm assuming this is just an error on the FCC's part, and that they automatically released it after a year. Though with the current administration, Hanlon's razor is getting harder and harder to apply.