if they go this route then they are openly admitting that their platform is not a neutral playing field for free speech.

no social media platform wants to have that fame(at least ones that want ot last and not get boycotted).

as said above as long as these channels arent breaking youtube ToS, there is no reason to crack down on them.

ultimately? nothing changed, the NSA still does what they do but now they are more tighly controlling their flow of information to avoid further leaks.

they still do the things they have always done: control information.

the fact it has been sealed for that long means no air not additional moisture got in. most food products are packaged in a way that it removes air/humidity and sterilized(often thru the process we call Pasteurization).

as long as the product remains sealed(before you 1st open it yourself+ the packaging is undamaged) you can generally be safe in the knowledge it will be good at least until their "best-by" date and that it hasnt been tampered with.

tho fair warning, depending on how it was stored, this doesnt mean it still "good", temperature extremes can alter the charactirstics of the product.

the biggest issue with trying to implement the system in the US is that by itself is not sufficient.

NHs's works in other countires because they also pass legislation that regulates food/consumer products in the interest of protecting public Health.

for instance: some of the products you see in the US sold as "Food" would be deemed outright illegal to sell in these nations just from the sheer amount of sugar in them.

such regulation would in turn significantly lower the incidience of avoidable diseases like morbid obesity, Heart diseases and diabetes. this would in turn "unclog" the NHS

TLDR:implementing a NHS demands legislation that also aims ot improve the overall Health of the population. some companies would rather not have that because it would cut inot their bottom line.

kinda?

it's more the sense that evne when you are providing a free option there tends to be caveats to it that some people wont be interested in(make no mistake "Free healthcare" is not free, in order for this system to function properly thre needs to be regulations put in place in the interest of protecting the Health of the population, and this is where you have a lot of pushback from lobbies un the US).

the common complain with NHS performance is wait times and the perceived notion that the quality of care is gonna be lesser(this is not true), so they might sitll want or need access ot the private sector, this is where having Health insurance is gonna matter and where the demand would remain.

but ultimately the big shake up would be, that with a free altenrative available, Health insurance providers would have a ceiling on how much much they can charge clients and hospitals(since they have a choice now)

this is also to mention that many jobs that were placed in the private sector, would just get transffered over to be managed in the public sector(you still need people to coordinate hospitals in order to assure that payments and the financial side of running them are taken care of.)

> I feel like this is a crucial question to answer.

its not as relevant as you think, their jobs would simply become obsolete and/or reduced.

the existence of a National Health Service doesnt remove the demand for Health insurance(private hospitals/practices are still very much a thing), it just forces them to adapt to the competition and make their premiums and reinbursements, competitively priced since they no longer get to dangle the " accept or die" keys over the people.

Employers would likely remove it as a benefit(unless the job demands for liability and safety) but then this would force them to also improve wages to match the gap.

go figure, can't attack the argument , lets attack the person instead.

you were asked ot provide proof of the claim above, apparently this is too much.

> if a dog has such biting problem, why not put a muzzle on it instead of killing it?

euthanizing is generally the last resort if the dog apart from is also seriously ill(as go figure most fo the dogs that do this werent being properly taken care of), many dogs that were previously involved in fighting can be rehabilitated(and often end up as service dogs even).

but ultimately the problem isnt the dog, they were just being dogs, its the owners that either thru abuse , neglect or both failed ot train and care of them properly and should be held liable for their actions.

gonna have ot ask you to show your work on this one.

its most definetely not illegal to carry a chainsaw, you might get asked some question but no one is gonna stop you.

now if you are carrying around in the streets an active chainsaw with on indication of what you are doing with it then youll be stopped(as with no further context you are in public brandishing a deadly weapon)

(fair warning this might be a generalization and varies based on location)

unless there is a reason for it, muzzling a dog just for being a specific breed is not a good precedent(and muzzling based on this alone is animal abuse), and while some places enforce it( a lot of actually) it tend to not be mandatory or at worst fine worthy, under the knowledge that the owner is legally liable for anything that happens.

wanna not have to muzzle dogs at all? Train them properly, a pitbull can be incredibly tame...if the owner isnt encouraging them to be agressive or is actively abusing them, but at the end of the day a dog is gonna go dog if provoked hard enough(and its not gonna be the animal's fault).

you should honestly be more scared of the smaller breeds of dogs since on their cases its been normalized to encourage shtty behaviour pattenrs(that make them incredibly anxious and skittish) that makes them a bigger danger of attack.

> There are plenty of blindtests that show the eye only can process up to 60 fps.

this is not how the eye works, we dont really process information the same way a camera would.

what we do understand is that 24 fps is the absolute mininum where you can " trick" the brain into believing its seeing motion.

if anythnig the true limitation of these higher rate displays is reaction time to motion

this is factually wrong.

Lead has been known to be toxic basically since discovery. we just didnt make use of it in the way we did in the last 100 years or so(because it was pushed for despite knowing its dangers)

but before that LEad had its uses as a dense and malleable metal

"Trying to not crash" miht sound simple, before you realize you are doing this on a car that needs to make turns at 160+mph and you are stuck in this very tight and hot vehicle for multiple hours at a time. and dont forget thru the sheer speed along ythey are being subjected to rapid G changes(not as extreme as lets say a fighter Pilot, but still way beyond your run of the mill driver can take.)

you are already talking about very strong reflexes and endurance, an untrained individual would mostl ikely pass out just from the heat of being cooked up inside an F1's car Cabin for that long.

its not a conicidence that F1 Drivers rank among some of the best paid people in the world.