How would you even carry it?

Maybe a shitful

Alien: Its the dumbing-down aspect. Used to be used on signage in all Japanese airports, until shortly after the Alien film came out, then, AFAIU, Americans made complaints that they were being compared to huge, ugly, frightening monsters, and the authorities were forced to change all the signs.

In the UK, AFAIK, the distinction remains between program and programme, but is gradually being eroded (I don't think I've ever seen a computer program spelt as programme). In most cases its evident from context which meaning is intended, but not always, and therefore it makes perfect sense to retain the distinction.

Don't you mean 'dreadly'?

That seems a little far-fetched. When I was growing up, 'Alien' meant something from outer space, but then I came to the US in the 80s and learned for the first time about being a 'resident alien'. Strange that the US would force another country to stop using a term commonly in use in the US ...

Which usage of Alien are you complaining about; would you rather see 'persons from overseas' instead of Alien, or 'beings from outer space' instead of Alien?

According to this, Program vs. programme - Grammarist , Brits use 'program' only for "computer program", so you are right. I'm sure one could construct a convoluted sentence or paragraph that could confuse the two, but I don't think there's much danger of that in normal life, and for that VERY rare occasion, one does have the option of adding the word 'computer' . Which do you prefer:
1) "I just watched a program on TV about computer programs" or
2) "I just watched a programme about programs"
The latter doesn't really look too good to me.

Alien: Possibly the word Alien alone, without the resident, threw the Yanks; the change definitely happened shortly after the first Alien film came out, and I was told it was the result of many complaints. Who knows.

"I just watched a programme about programs" both looks good and is logical to me. "I just watched a program about programs" is both ugly and ambiguous (yes, I dropped the "on TV", but most people wouldn't write or say "on TV"). I just don't like changing things for no good reason when the result is a lack of precision, concision or clarity. But I know I'm in a minority...

Your example is irrelevant, as in the US, where program is used in both contexts, people would actually say, "I just watched a show about programs." However, both versions are kind of moot, as the sentence doesn't make a lot of sense without a qualifier for programs.

Maybe you can get them at the shoppes.

Maybe we can bring up Analogue?

Is there any logical reason to append the 'ue'?

Saying (or writing, to be precise) "Analogue and Digital" always seems odd to me; Analog is a much nicer word.

I'm also for the non-French influenced Center vs Centre, and other similar words.

I think you have now stepped over the line from "the English language evolving" into the concerted effort that was made to modernize/simplify English, which naturally only really created more inconsistencies.

Those are all acceptable though, the word doesn't change, only the spelling. Obviously when you say it, it makes no difference. Writing tends to be just what you're used to. I don't even really keep track of whether I do the UK or US version anymore, to be honest.

4 pints would last a week, 2 litres never quite made it. Similar to the grocery shrink ray

Which is correct learned or learnt , my learned friends?

That's a British vs American usage again. Both are correct. It's like spelled/spelt or burned/burnt.

Or smelled/smelt.