Why on earth is your supervisor getting so heavily involved in a simple poster design?
Providing comments is one thing. Actively editing a poster is not on.
This is YOUR PhD. No wonder you are feeling a lack of ownership.
You need to talk to your supervisor as soon as possible and tell them you are considering quitting and the exact reason why.

If is student is contributing meaningfully in any way to your project then you are a team and they should have a mention in everything you do including papers that you publish. You have an ethical duty to do this in my opinion. You should certainly retain first authorship and corresponding author. Your first instinct on this is the ethically correct one.

I was talking about the PhD in general. Of course in the early few months you will use your supervisor more often but that should certainly change over time. I would not have tolerated my supervisor entering my workspace every few days beyond the first month or two. Mind you, by asking that question up front during the interview I would have known to expect that sort of supervision ;-)

To be fair, if you are seeing your supervisor more than once a month, this really is not giving you the independence you need.

You are certainly welcome to disagree but given that a PhD is supposed to be first and foremost an intensely intellectual pursuit I would be interested to know what other skills you think could adequately compensate for a lack of a good academic starting position.

The oroblem here is that your expectation levels are way too high.
You should expect to take around a year to learn enough to be competent.
Learning a programming language competently and sustainably alone will take about a month or two.
You have only been going a couple of months.
Listen to your supervisor.

Even though you will specialise during your PhD, you certainly will be expected to develop a broader knowledge of relevant material as well. Speak to your supervisor about this and they will advise. Oh and expect to go through your entire PhD feeling you are not up to date. I think the majority of us felt that.

Only your proposed supervisor can answer this I'm afraid. You will need to ask them.

Are you planning to resubmit to the same journal or are you looking to publish elsewhere now?
Good luck either way. Is this your first publication?

Yes the approach you adopt is key. You would need to be careful not to come across as aggressive or overly assertive. I cant see any way of asking about either decolonisation or policies about aggressive sexual assaults without coming across appallingly though :-D Honestly, I do wonder what on earth those Edinburgh students were thinking when they advised asking about that.

I've seen the movie but I can't remember much about it now.
Once you start seeing the bots you see them everywhere. Another 3 or 4 year old thread has just been hijacked by someone talking about Zenith essays or something.

I think the ideas of the bots is to get them actively engaging on forums in the hope that by interacting with humans they learn how to be better communicators. If that is true, the best course is to ignore them and deny them the learning process. I wont be responding to any more of them.

I would imagine any large company with a Human Resources department would be a good place to start but this really is not my area I'm afraid.

I spoke to a colleague about this a year ago. He sits on panels which make decisions on funding.
His strong advice was to avoid trying to be cautious with proposals in a misguided attempt to make it easier to secure funding.
Get a really exciting idea, build a collabarative team to deliver it and apply. Excite the funders he said. I am inclined to go with that advice.

The important thing for me is not being a scientist but instead being a research scientist. The latter is reserved for those who actively perform research activities. The former are really administrators and managers.
The term "technician" should be reserved for those doing largely routine or manual work with little or no analysis or interpretation of results.
Most academic research staff fall into the category of administrators or managers and do little or no active research work themselves. They seem quite happy to claim much of the credit though.

Of course most academic funding still goes to hot topics but there should be plenty of money for those with exciting proposals.

It is true for academia but this is not always true for industry.
Industry research doesn't just fund "hot topics". Companies fund what they think might result in profitable products or services or cast greater insight into how current products or services work with a view to reducing costs, increasing patents and increasing profits etc. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

Of course industry does also fund university research directly but you have a mixed bag really.

I understand that but the problem with your approach is that in your desire not to be rejected for the post you have a very high risk of landing yourself with the wrong supervisor for you. This is an interview for both supervisor and student. This forum is absolutely crammed full of posts from people who either forgot that or didnt realise it.

You absolutely must find out about stuff like this. Nobody else will do it for you. All of those questions I have listed are absolutely fundamental and it will affect you if you get them wrong. There are good ways of asking those questions of course but there is no point in me messing about during an interview trying not to be rejected, getting the job and then having to spend the next 4 years walking on eggshells. It is vital to the future working arrangements that I see the supervisor as they would be on a day to day basis and that they get to see me in mine. If they cannot handle an assertive and intense student then the PhD will be a disaster if I cover that up. I have terminated several job interviews in the past when it was clear there would be a problem and I have had a couple terminated on me. Only once did I accept a job offer after I had a heated argued with the lead engineer (she made a technical mistake through inexperience and wouldnt admit it claiming I was at fault) during the interview and it was a disaster. It is just not worth it. There are always plenty of other jobs for me to to go for.