The harmful effects of cigarettes are well known. Those of us who don't want to suffer those effects simply don't smoke and we avoid *most* of those effects (aside when someone else is smoking nearby).
It's extremely easy to not smoke, there is no downside, we save money and experience better health.

For food it's much more difficult:

1) we need to consume food, we can't simply avoid it
2) smoking=bad is simple and easy to avoid, but the huge number of ingredients and processing methods are extremely difficult to comprehend and fully understand
3) food products are often changing their recipes, forcing you to constantly recheck the ingredients list
4) the full ingredient list is sometimes not available, ingredients are masked by generic terms like "natural flavorings" or sometimes not easily available at all.
5) while smoking is harmful to anyone, some foods are only harmful to a subset of individuals - eg nuts can be poisonous to those with a nut allergy but harmless to others.
6) often there are very limited options available, many restaurants only offer soft drinks and/or alcohol which makes life difficult for someone who doesn't or can't consume either of these etc.

The replacement artificial sweeteners used in the "low sugar" soft drinks are even worse, and couple that with the marketing which basically says "this doesnt contain any sugar so you can consume as much as you want" and you have a disaster in the making.

Sugar is not harmful in sensible quantities, i would rather drink a small quantity of full sugar coca-cola than any quantity of coke zero.

Healthy food and market capitalism are inherently incompatible...

The solution is moderate consumption of natural traditional foods, things that our bodies have evolved over thousands of years to consume. But moderate consumption is unprofitable, the market system forces companies to:

1) encourage excessive consumption, more consumption = more profit
2) look for ways to cheapen the product to either improve margins, or compete against others

The end result is always going to be junk packed full of the cheapest possible ingredients that are not illegal or outright poisonous.

Government regulation could solve this if done properly, but usually makes things worse because current regulation focuses on saying "X is bad, reduce X", which means X gets replaced with Y where Y is something new that hasn't been studied enough to make it onto the bad list yet.

There are also things like coloring that exist solely for marketing to make the product look more appealing, but serve no nutritional purpose and could be harmful. The use of artificial coloring should really be eliminated entirely.

The UK government is actually encouraging UPF with the sugar tax. Heavily tax sugar and manufacturers respond by replacing the sugar with something worse to avoid the tax.

Healthy foods aren't too expensive, but you generally only get the raw ingredients and have to prepare them yourself.

Prepared foods should in theory cost more because you're paying for not only the ingredients but also the preparation, the only reason they're cheaper is because they can hide all kinds of unpleasant or inferior ingredients in there.

Excellent:

"In the US, the two major parties are indistinguishable in intent, that is, to keep their jobs."

Attacks by President Trump cause many people in government to avoid saying what they actually think. They don't want to lose their jobs.

Technology is moving ahead very fast!

Plus nvidia are targeting bitcoin/llm users while gamers take a back seat.

Simple solution to that, give the Ukrainian government control/access to the services operating over their territory. Provide them the tools and let them make the mistakes.

Technology of the time made accurate targeting very difficult and far more dangerous. Even today, accurate weapons are significantly more expensive than inaccurate ones.

And commercial operations are beholden to governments giving them the right to operate within their territory.
There are many countries where starlink is not available, because their governments have not agreed terms for it to operate.

One thing Starlink could do is give the ukrainian government temporary (until the war ends) full access/control of all data flowing through the starlink network from any terminals within internationally recognised ukrainian territory.

Make it too dangerous for the russians to use, but still usable for ukraine.

Trump pointed out that most countries didn't meet their obligations, and most of those countries ignored him. It was Putin who succeeded in getting these countries to up their budgets.

In 2014 only 3 nato members met the 2% target (USA, UK, Greece):
https://www.nato.int/content/d...