Recipes are a snapshot of economic and technological advances of the time, and whole classes of recipe are not available until certain technological watersheds, like

* precise temperature controls for ovens and stoves in the early 20th century

* cheap and health(ier) chemical leaveners in the late 19th century

* discovery of consistent vanilla pollination in the 19th century

* exchanges of ingredients in the Columbian exchange (tomatoes in Italy, potatoes in Russia, chilis in India and Korea, etc.)

Also our modern supply chain is very good at magicking away the seasonality and perishability of ingredients, so for example you had early Scottish shortbread primarily using rice flour because it was cheaper at that time.

* repealing the cap on house seats, which has been stuck at 435 arbitrarily * requiring that metropolitan areas consist of multimember districts that get allocated by proportional voting

The real conversation we should have is about money talking; a huge amount of assets are facing being stranded by insurers. Insurance doesn't really care about ideology, they care about making money, and so the fact they are losing money to climate change is pretty irrefutable evidence. Though right now politicians are just reframing this as "greedy insurance", which isn't exactly untrue.

The fact that the current president has such a stranglehold over their party is pretty unprecedented; normally, the big tent parties have lots of little camps with power bases that somewhat insulate independence, whether that be on an issue or regional level. It's kind of odd that the disenfranchised members of that party have not started up their own party.

Also, I think the current gerrymandering race to the bottom has pretty clearly demonstrated the need for a better system of voting and district mapping. The House elections are already regulated by congressional act, not by the constitution.

Like, you don't need two agencies to test that the side effect of a medicine is nausea.

Not a fan of how big tech has become the parable of the frog in slowly boiling water.

The ones they generally don’t recommend in the US are those that involve airway or jaw modification; they have fairly low success rates, you’ll have trouble eating for months, and they can come with a whole host of nasty side effects like permanent uncontrolled nasal drip. Plus, in general US medicine tries not to recommend major surgeries if alternatives are good enough or better, not only to reduce cost and recovery, complications etc, but also because general anesthesia itself is risky.

It took until 2023 to support nesting, something that was so obvious that preprocessors have had it since at least 2006.

For surgery, it turns out there are higher rates of it being the improper treatment and partial or full failure, and you still might need CPAP anyways. And that’s on top of the fairly standard and obvious preference for non invasive treatments in general.

I will say a fairly non invasive surgery that is much easier to consider is fixing a deviated septum; it probably won’t fix your apnea, but it being deviated is probably not helping.

It does require constant tuning and adjustment though.