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.

You don't have an understanding of neural networks at a mathematical level.

This especially shows up when you try to argue that rocks can think, like you did last time.

Trump doesn't have the will to deploy military strength. His actions so far have been performance theater (ie, pick on small countries in hopes that Russia and China will be afraid).

It's not learning, it's just using past conversation as input.

Learning would be if it adjusted its internal weights.

I'd be interested to see if writers could put their energies into imagining the best possible futures, would governments implement the changes needed to converge on these.

I envisage a world without the music industry.

I'm going to generalise and say that any concentration of control is automatically bad - humanity excels at finding creative solutions because of individual differences. Once differences are legislated away, something is lost - just look at the effect of government.

There's no need for the music industry - recording, distribution, promotion are all within the reach of individuals as are voice coaches, tour organisation, etc

Now they're no longer needed they've metastised into an entirely self-serving bull-in-a-china shop - using their financial resources to dominate traditional airplay, influence politics, and generally act as a malign influence on humanity.

Music Industry: Do the world a favour - shift your focus to an area where it's needed.

The people at the top of the pyramid (scheme) want you to believe that, but it's not true..

Particularly the "move all production out of the country" part, which accounts for 20% of Apple's total production (and it's growing), and $20 billion worth of iPhones (85% of which is exported).

End users will put a lot of pressure on the government if they can't get iPhones. The economic loss will put more.

How about the judge shuts down the record labels?

How much longer are they going to monetise and police a form of expression as old as humanity as if they invented it?

How much longer are they going to prey on young women to ensure overt sexuality is a prerequisite for a chance of a music career?

Insert your gripe below...

For some reason I can hear the theme song from Star Trek Enterprise whilst reading this.

Are existing records of political donations accompanied by exhaustive details of which legislation has been paid for?