Resetting it will kill bacteria, certainly. But there are a number of heat-stable toxins that once created will not be destroyed that way.
I guess you've been doing this for a while, and presumably it's been working, plus I know that historically this is how people lived. But be aware it's not risk free.
A suggestion: A pressure cooker - not for the pressure, but because they can be sealed. Heat the food, then let it cool without opening it. Kind of a less secure form of canning.
I recently had a run-in with security restrictions at work that only blocked the abstraction layer at the top, and were utterly surprised to discover that if you go down one level none of their restrictions did anything.
They eventually decided to keep their head in the sand and pretend like their restriction was useful.
The issue was a complete lack of knowledge of how the system actually worked one layer down.
The EU caused the deaths, not the heat. People have been dying from heat in the EU for decades now, and the EU has done ........ nothing (well other than declare superiority to the US).
More people die from heat each year in the EU than from guns in the US. Which topic gets more attention?
We are in different circles, because everyone in my circle is desperate for a solution to unrestricted phone use by kids.
> I'm a parent. Nobody has been blocked from parenting by tech companies.
What age? Because they absolutely have. Wait till your kid has instragram and snapchat and WhatsApp and they can talk to random adults, or get bullied and you have no way to know. Wait till they lock their phone, and you have no way to check it. Wait till they get addicted to content that basically blocks them from doing any part of normal life and all they want to do all day is sit and watch a phone.
It's really bad out there. This is the first generation to test as less intelligent than their parents. Read some of the articles on how kids are cheating with AI, and it's not just that AI is available, I think the kids simply can't do the work, and that's because they spend most of their time on the phone.
This doesn't bode well for the future, and something to restrict kids from phone is desperately needed. What it should look like, I'm not sure. I don't care about proving a specific ID for anything, just an age range is enough: Either your above 18, or what's your age when under 18, nothing more is needed.
That's an argument you made, I was simply responding to this idea that parents don't want to parent. It's not true, they do, they just can't.
A solution is needed, and I think age verification is a good start - divide apps into kid apps, and adult apps. Kid apps will be made such that parents have full access to them, and they are blocked from social networks, only individual messages, and pre-planned groups.
Other solutions might also work - I'm not stuck on any particular one. But they all start by making it impossible for kids to access the adult internet (and I don't mean porn, I mean unrestricted communication).
Do you have a solution? And again, don't say "just parent the kid", because we've established that as impossible with modern devices.
In places where WhatsApp is highly used you basically can't function without it, school events are posted there, friends organize activities on it, teachers communicate to both parents and kids on it.
Giving a highschool kid a phone is basically mandatory or they will be cut off from activities, and/or rely on a friend to relay messages. In some places even middleschoolers need it.
There are definitely downsides (not to mention WhatsApp is a really badly engineering program), but the network effect is too strong to fight.
Your 1/3 number is complete nonsense. The actual number is Zero of those people are homeless because of medical debt.
People do not become homeless because of medical debt, that's simply not a thing that happens. Nor do people "lose everything" because of medical debt, that also doesn't happen.
If the medical debt is that bad they just don't pay it, or they file for bankruptcy. Absolutely nothing happens in the US if you don't pay medical debt. Nothing. It doesn't even hurt your credit score.
That study you linked should be held up as a case study in lying with statistics. But as hard as they tried to lie if you actually read it closely you will discover that medical debt does not cause homelessness.
That's just not true. If you give your kid WhatsApp access because that's how 95% of their peers text each other, then your kid has access to a hidden chat that can only be revealed by typing a secret code in the search bar.
Tell me how a parent is supposed to parent their kid when they can do that? Locking down WhatsApp is no solution because then they can't talk to anyone. (Other countries do not use SMS as much as the US does, it's mostly WhatsApp.)
Say you are sure your kid is being bullied or abused and you want to check their phone. You can't. From the password to encrypted apps kids can hide their communications in ways that are impossible for a parent to check.
Apps do not have "child modes" that disable all the secret stuff, although that would be nice.
Why is it weird? Social media has existed for around the same amount of time for all western countries, and people have noticed the harm at around the same time everywhere.
Why do you require some special interest? Ordinary people are seeing the harm and demanding help. Tech companies did themselves no favors by locking down phones and accounts to the point that it's impossible for parents to police and/or check their kids phones.
So now that parents have been blocked from parenting, who else is going to do it?
> But what about "free healthcare". Don't americans want socialized healthcare over their despised privatized system?
Not really. The internet bubble might make you think that, but actually ordinary people aren't interested.
People with good jobs have health insurance, people without get government subsidized insurance. Either way most people are fine with what they have.
And the issues with healthcare in the US will not be solved by the government being the one to pay. Billing is too complex (i.e. costly), and Dr salaries are too high (compare them to other countries). Neither of those issues are solved by the government paying.
And don't forget how Americans hear stories from other countries about huge waits for care, and they want none of that.
There are zero proposals to make all Dr's employees of the government, on salary, who just take care of whoever shows up. But that might actually work to reduce costs.
What you are describing is not hivemind, but rather paid participants. Companies pay for these "grassroots" recommendations, and Iran pays for those Jews posts.
It used to be more subtle with real people paid to post, but AI has made the quantity of it skyrocket, to the point where you can start to notice it, if you pay attention.
For example you'll see some comment about Jews, and very rapidly a bunch of upvotes. And you'll see a very similar comment elsewhere, with the same upvote pattern.
I've cut back quite a bit my participation in these types of sites once I realized just how many of the "people" I'm talking to are actually bots.
That doesn't work. Because the random times are uniformly distributed it's possible to remove it from the data by additional sampling. You do make it harder because you need a lot more data, but it's still possible to extract the signal, because the noise is uniform.
Unless you install special rules you won't be doing extra computation.