Outside of a very small community (of which I am a member) this won't even register as a problem, let alone motivate a sizeable number of people to do anything about it. Our species lacks the will to even stop literally poisoning ourselves.

Liberals are fairly consistent in defending people's right to their faith while speaking out against people who want to impose their faith on others.

Agreed 100%.

Iâ(TM)m not suggesting we criminalize ideas or the expression thereof, Iâ(TM)m saying they shouldnâ(TM)t be engaged or acknowledged as something worth discussing.

How would you constructively debate someone who believes certain ethnic groups shouldnâ(TM)t exist or should be property?

Israel is freeing the shit out of those people.

I reject the idea that all viewpoints should be tolerated and treated as valid and worthy of debate. It is a cowardly position that inevitably enables atrocities.

No, they said that about automation, and they weren't wrong, it just largely missed white-collar jobs. Until now.

I do very much understand what you're saying and it certainly adds to the complexity. One cannot put sociological or psychological factors on a box.

That aspect of the problem is indeed going to be much harder to deal with than, say, salt, trans fats, or known carcinogenic compounds.

Honestly, I'm not sure what you can do about those aspects - financial incentives help a little, but honestly I don't believe they make a huge difference - which is why I've concentrated on unsafe levels of ingredients, because although we don't know exactly what those should be, we've at least got a rough idea for some of them. It's going to be a delicate one, though -- you don't want to overly restrict sources of sugar because diabetics can suffer from crashes due to excessively low sugar just as badly as excessively high levels, and some items get unfairly maligned (chocolate, per se, isn't bad for you, it's the additives, and indeed particularly high percentage chocolate can be helpful for the heart).

But, yes, I absolutely agree with your overarching point that the problems are primarily psychological and sociological. I just don't have the faintest idea of how these can be tackled. Jamie Oliver tried (albeit not very well, but he did at least try) and the pushback was borderline nuclear, and that was where there was clear and compelling evidence of significant difference in health and functionality. If you can barely escape with your life for saying eating better reduces sickness and improve concentration, and pushing for changes where these two factors essentially dictate whether a person is functional in life, then I don't hold out hope for change where it's more ambiguous or the economics are much tougher.

There are papers arguing that smoothies aren't as good as eating real fruit because it seems that there's actually a benefit to having to break down cell walls, even at the expense of not getting 100% of the nutrients from it. However, cooking food breaks down cell walls, although obviously not to the same degree. It's not clear that breaking down cell walls is harmful, even if it's not beneficial.

A lot of ultra-processed foods have been accused of having unhealthy levels of certain ingredients (usually sugars or salt) and certain styles of cooking can add harmful compounds.

It would seem reasonable to say that there's a band at which a given ingredient is beneficial (analogous to a therapeutic threshold), with levels above that being increasingly harmful, eventually reaching a recognised toxic threshold. In terms of the harmful compounds from cooking, it seems reasonable to suggest that, below a certain level, the body's mechanisms can handle them without any issue, that it's only above that that there's any kind of problem.

So it would seem that we've got three factors - processing that can decrease benefits, ingredients that follow a curve that reaches a maximum before plunging, and processing that can increase harm.

Nobody wants to be given a complicated code that they need to look up, but it would seem reasonable that you can give a food a score out of three, where it would get 3 if you get maximum benefit and no harm, where you then subtract for reduced benefit and increased harm. That shouldn't be too hard for consumers, most people can count to 3.

Yeah, understood, food is going to vary, since it's all uncontrolled ingredients and processing itself is very uncontrolled. So take two or three examples as a fair "representative sample". Further, most manufacturers can't afford to do the kind of testing needed, and our understanding of harm varies with time. No problem. Give a guidebook, updated maybe once every couple of years, on how to estimate a value, which can be used, but require them to use a measured value if measured, where the value is marked E or M depending on whether it's estimated or measured.

It's not perfect, it's arguably not terribly precise (since there's no way to indicate how much a food item is going to vary), and it's certainly not an indication of any "absolute truth" (as we don't know how beneficial or harmful quite a few things are, food science is horribly inexact), but it has to be better than the current system because - quite honestly - it would be hard to be worse than the current system.

But it's simple enough to be understandable and should be much less prone to really bizarre outcomes.

50 years later and 26mph slower than Italy's high speed rail,30 years later and 40mph slower than France, 15 years later and 20mph slower than Spain, in a country with an awful lot more money, greater access to modern technology, a larger engineering pool, and a lot of relatively flat land.

Still, one shouldn't complain. America is, at least, moving in a sensible direction on train travel, which is an improvement over how things were in 2000 when the Federal government weren't able to get a number of States to build train lines even if the Feds paid for everything.

What, did you think Citizens United would only allow conservative organizations to conceal their funding sources?

I maintain that boast remains objectively true (yes, in spite of Biden's decline) every time your guy opens his fool, lying mouth.

It speaks volumes about who MAGA looks up to as their thought leaders, and it's perfectly on-brand that those people are as easy marks as their followers.

Let's start with Russia.