Marilyn Monroe's extraordinary attractiveness and magnetism was a skill that she could turn on and off.

There's a story that a journalist told about Marilyn Monroe:

Marilyn had never been in a subway. Wrapped in the camel’s hair coat, her famous hair subdued, she walked to the Grand Central stop of the IRT and down to the platform. Nobody recognized her. Eddie’s camera kept clicking while she stood straphanging on the uptown local. No heads turned.

Back up on the street, Marilyn looked around with a teasing smile. “Do you want to see her?” she asked, then took off the coat, fluffed up her hair, and arched her back in a pose. In an instant, she was engulfed, and it took several shoving, scary minutes to rewrap her and push clear of the growing crowd.

Apparently many other people have told similar stories.

Aella breaks some of this down in this video.

How is it getting easier to be loved by others if you're female attracted?

This might be TMI, but is it weird that, in fantasies and when reading/watching erotic material, I can identify with the female characters and performers as easily as the male ones? M/M scenes in written or video porn don't do much for me, but imagining being a woman that's having sex with a man seems to satisfy the "I'm turned on by female sexuality" switch in my brain just as effectively as imagining being my male self having sex with a woman. So if I fell into the same magic spring that Ranma did, I wouldn't be too surprised if I found myself becoming attracted to men during only those times that I had a female body.

I don't know who ceciocat is, so what makes it so weird that the video was by them in particular?

I don't know if anyone transitions for this reason, but people are sometimes more willing to foregive certain "flaws" in one gender than another. For example, it seems to me that a lack of career ambition is more socially acceptable in a woman than in a man - a man who wants to be a househusband rather than a breadwinner has to confront negative stereotypes that a woman that wants to be a housewife does not. And men are often able to be more direct and aggressive without suffering social repercussions.

As for myself, I think that, holding as much else constant as possible, I might have been a little bit happier having been born female, but I think not being short might have helped even more - in addition to having been a short kid, my adult height ended up being about six inches below the median, which is also the kind of thing that's worse if you're male...

Economist Noah Smith has made a similar argument, that comparative advantage will still preserve human jobs, with the caveat that it only holds if the AIs aren't competing with humans for the same scarce resources. He does admit that if, say, humans have to outbid AIs for things like electricity to run farm equipment and for land to grow crops on, we might very well end up with a problem.

Economist Noah Smith has made a similar argument, that comparative advantage will still preserve human jobs, with the caveat that it only holds if the AIs aren't competing with humans for the same scarce resources. He does admit that if, say, humans have to outbid AIs for things like electricity to run farm equipment and for land to grow crops on, we might very well end up with a problem.

If we could pay ants in sugar to stay out of our houses, we might do that instead of putting up poison ant baits. Or we could do things like let them clean up spilled food for us, if we weren't worried about the ants being unhygenic. The biggest difficulty in trading with ants is that getting ants to understand and actually do what we would want them to do is usually more trouble than it's worth when it's even possible at all.

Humans do something with honeybees that's a lot like trading, although it is mostly taking advantage of the fact that the effects of their natural behaviors (producing honey and pollinating plants) are useful to us. We still only tend to care about honeybee well-being to the extent that it's instrumentally useful to us, though.

Indeed, the comparative advantage theorem includes the assumption that being left alone is actually an option that both traders have. It does say that, if two agents have literally any ability to each produce things the other want, they can do at least as well by trading as by leaving each other alone. It very much does not say that it is, in fact, absolutely impossible for one of the agents to do even better than that by killing the other one and taking their stuff.

The Coasian barganing theorem comes a little bit closer, but a lack of leverage can still reduce an offer to something like "if you don't fight back I'll make your death painless instead of horrible".

How much more delusional would someone like Mr. Humman end up if, instead of chess, he had been playing a game with random elements and actually did beat the expert due to sheer luck?

People used to make that argument about Go because its branching factor made AI programs that worked like chess engines intractable - until someone invented Monte Carlo tree search.