Who says we do?

Often it’s measured with CPI, which measures the price of a pre-set collection of goods and services, representing what an average individual may spend on.

You’re completely correct that it could either be 9 or a 2 then a 1. The issue is that you’re assuming that the is no context.

In storage, there are conventions (e.g. ASCII) that say that basic text is 8 bits per letter. Similarly, other data is stored in fixed-length intervals.
In RAM, whoever is writing to it determines how it is used. It could be any length. The program (and programmer) using it needs to make sure they’re using it correctly.

There are also ways to compress things like text, where bit length is dynamic. But that’s a bit complex, so let me know if you want that explanation as well.

I don’t think I’m quite understanding.
The issue is thinking that one shuffle from an ordered deck is “as random” as one that has been shuffled 1000 times. They’re not. The first one is MUCH more likely to happen than the other (and thus is not truly random)

I wouldn’t say BS. Just maybe a little misleading.

• This one specifies “randomly”
• This one says “completely at random”
• This specific the shuffles as “random”
• And this one is really clear, saying that “Card games tend to order decks in common ways, so you need to shuffle really well (about seven times using the "riffle" method) before you’re holding any deck which is truly one-of-a-kind. ”

The idea you’re talking about is true and accurate, for a fully randomly shuffled deck of cards.
A newly opened (and therefore ordered) deck that has only been riffled a few times is not fully random.

The programmers don’t program question-answer pairs. Rather, they program a tool that “reads” millions of online articles, then tries to replicate responses that sound how the tool thinks an response about X would sound.
This often means that it gets things (surprisingly) correct, but can also lead to it sounding extremely confident, while having funky and/or misleading information.