I was expecting this to be a story of an issue, but this is actually really encouraging for what single payer could look like. The time scale isn’t great, but it’s pretty comparable to what I’ve experienced and heard about from friends here in the “efficient” private US system.

People have already correctly answered that in this community there are no stupid questions, you’re supposed to be able to ask anything without ridicule. But if you want to permit the general existence of stupid questions, here’s the definition I’ve always used.

A stupid question is one you can easily answer yourself.

As in, any question due to real lack of knowledge is not stupid, but if you can answer your own question just by thinking about it for a second, then it wasn’t necessary to ask and therefore "stupid”.

Sauce?

“To fry” means to cook in oil or fat. A distinction we can make is “deep fry” like the chicken, and “pan fry” for the other 2. We don’t use woks as much here so really the only difference between fried rice and a fried egg is whether you stir it or flip it, but both are still cooked in a pan with oil.

Using a public bidet sounds like an awful idea.

Yeah, 50% person actually restarted, 30% chance person is lying, 20% chance person just turned the monitor off and back on.

If the thing in question is changed, and the only part of us that can directly affect is our opinion, then I would call that a social construction.

We define what existence is. We have all collectively agreed that being here in the perceptible world means that something exists. We could choose to include the imaginary in its definition and then would be able to say that dragons and wizards exist. We could also choose to say something has to be present in 4 dimensions to exist, in which case we’d not be able to say that anything exists.

A social construct is simply an idea that has been created and accepted by the people in a society which includes the dictionary itself. I’d also say that these definitions are often useful at allowing us to communicate and cooperate with one another, but that doesn’t mean we didn’t make up the idea.

Our naming and classification of things is all socially constructed. So yes, our categorization of edible things as food is a social construct, but our physical need to fuel our bodies with something digestible is not. But also, using it that way makes existence a social construct, so it depends on how rigid you want to be.

Again?!

Who’s going to post that 2 nickels meme?

The USA first needs a serious left wing party for that to be possible.

The world is literally burning.

Fucking duh. It was a very simple settings change. Turn off “Open supported links” in “Set as default” in YouTube app settings

I’ve heard many people say the opposite of this.

(My own team is olive hater)

Dude, we’re probably the only 2 people on earth who are going to see this conversation, how am I trying to force anything? The responses you’ve given have made you seem like a very close minded person. If you don’t agree with what I’m saying that’s fine, but if you’re going to engage in a debate then please address the things I’m actually saying. Otherwise I’m just going to stop responding.

I’m not obligating anything or asking for any accommodation. I’m trying to make an argument for a better system than what we currently have, whereas you just seem to be saying ‘change is stupid’.

It’s not that contrived to have two subjects in a sentence be a single person and a group of people. I have personally been in situations where someone was confused about the use of the singular them. Obviously it’s possible to understand in most circumstances, but why not make it easier? Especially when it’s a simple solution that also stops most of the misgendering people experience.

Are we not intelligent enough to make language whatever we want it to be? We actually do that all the time with political correctness and ungendering words like policeman.

You could use a similar argument to stop literally any innovation. Things don’t have to be an issue to be able to be improved.

I understand that, my point is that they’re not useful. Or at least it would be much more useful to have a singular and a plural pronoun, because that distinction is more relevant to modern speech.