Every time. All 13 menu options, "legitimate interest", hidden tick boxes, big fat "YES" button and small grey "confirm my choices" button... ironically, if they didn't try so hard, I think I wouldn't care as much.
All those things are abhorrent, still not the main point, core or raison d'être of religion in any way. One could perhaps say it's a recurring theme in certain traditions, particularly of the abrahamic variety. Your perspective is very limited and very west-centric; ironically a very christian worldview.
Still wrong. As you are probably aware, religion (broadly defined) as a phenomenon is present in all known cultures throughout the history of humanity, in a myriad of different shapes and forms. The common thread to all of them is not morality.
Based on your username, I'm going to make the wild assumption that you live in Finland. I'm old enough to remember when we didn't have this system in Sweden, and stray shopping carts was never a problem back then. Anectotal and my memory may be a regional thing, sure, but where I live, most people would just put the carts where they belong because it would break the societal norm if they didn't. And my point is just that this system probably costs more than it pays off for the stores that uses it.
I would hope someone realized it accomplishes nothing except being a mild annoyance for customers. Most people return the carts anyway and it doesn't really stop anyone from stealing them if they really want them (or rather buying them for ~1 euro).
So you've added the criteria per capita; I still think you'd find that the gang milieus that gangsta rap (in its various forms) is closely associated with vastly overshadows any isolated cases of Nödtveidt or Varg-wannabes there still might be out there. Black Metal is also one of the most popular subgenres of metal nowadays, so the per capita argument doesn't really apply.
RAC/White Power-music perhaps, but then only because the fanbase of this music is so embarrassingly small.
I actually grew up around people just like that. Point is, the music they listened to never mentioned violence in any shape or form yet they would happily beat up anyone they could get their hands on for any made up reason they could think of - like being a metalhead or just wearing the wrong color pants.
Well, if you experience consciousness, that's what consciousness is. As in, the word and concept "consciousness" means being conscious, the way you experience being conscious right now (unless of course you're unconscious as I write this...). Free will does not enter into it at the basic level, nothing says you're not conscious if you do not have free will. So what would it really mean to say consciousness is an illusion? Who and what is having the illusion? Ironically, your statement assumes the existence of a higher form of consciousness that is not illusory (which may very well exist but how would we ever know?). Simply because a fake something presupposes a real something that the fake thing is not.
So let's say we could be certain that consciousness purely is the product of material processes in the brain. You still experience consciousness, that does not make it illusory. Perhaps this seems like I'm arguing semantics, but the important takeaway is rather that these kinds of arguments invariably fall apart under scrutiny. Consciousness is actually the only thing we can be absolutely certain exists; in this, Descartes was right.
So, it's meaningful to say that a language model could "fake" consciousness - trick us into believing it is an "experiencing entity" (or whatever your definition would be) by giving convincing answers in a conversation - but not really meaningful to say that actual conscious beings somehow fake consciousness. Or, that "their brains" (somehow suddenly acting apart from the entity) trick them.
What song is playing in the montage?