Id like to think that me pointing out this entire scenario was caused by the UK & US due to their support of Israel made it obvious where I stand on this debate. But apparently not.
As for the pedantry; the language used was not a personal opinion; but rather utilising their own language to draw the subsequent metaphor.
I don't take bro to exclusively mean male. But rather a male dominated group.
In the UK we use lads a lot; I'd say it's probably the British equivalent (tho bro does get used here too). IE: "I'm going to the pub with the lads." But that doesn't mean it's exclusively men, there's sometimes a woman or two in the group, it's just that it's a male dominated group. It's the same with women who have a female dominated group with a male member in (going to see my ladies/girlies etc...).
All of the above still assumes a male dominated use of AI though; and According to statista that does seem to be the case. Though as time goes on, the gap will likely close.
Personally I avoid using autocorrect for the same reason I avoid using a calculator for mundane calculations. I ascribe to the belief that your brain works in the same way a muscle does; that is, if you don't use it... you lose it.
In many instances, autocorrect can be a god send (someone with dyslexia no doubt finds it invaluable for example), but for the layperson, my opinion is that it's just another tool that promotes laziness, and a lack of thought around grammar/spelling etc.
I'm not suggesting my way is the correct approach, but rather offering an alternative viewpoint as to why some people disable assistance tools such as autocorrect.
The irony being that Houthi were attacking predominantly US & UK ships due to their ongoing support of Israel. The US created this problem, and then moan when they have to clean it up. At this point, the US is the world stage equivalent of a petulant child spilling milk on their shirt and then throwing a tantrum.
Average human is awake 15-18 hours every day.
Meaning 120 cigarettes per day would equate somewhere between 1 cigarette every 7 1/2 minutes and 1 cigarette every 9 minutes from wake-up to sleep. I'm not sure how feasible that realistically is, as certain activities prevent smoking (IE: eating/having a shower) which would affect the overall count, unless caught up elsewhere via chain-smoking.
I suppose it is technically possible. If you push it to being awake 20 hours in a day, then it's a far more manageable 1 cigarette every 10 minutes from the second you're awake to the second you're asleep, and with only 4 hours sleep every night, you probably won't have to worry too much about the long term health effects either!