The flame does touch the food. At least, according to the Kenji quote in the article.
Implying perfect code exists anywhere.
It's also trivially easy to tell if you're presenting someone else's work as your own. In an interview, you ask about their projects. Those would be very easy (and often fun) for the actual creator to answer, and not for anyone else.
To be fair, a good chunk of the US military budget does go towards scientific research. It's just not public.
As a one-off election, you wouldn't be able to. But in the real world, we get elections every few years, so you can see how many people approve of the eco or worker party. If it's high enough that they can potentially take over the liberals, then you can safely drop your approval for them in the next election.
Sounds like they're describing what we call "approval voting"
Of course it's possible. The question is whether someone is willing to pay for it out of their own pockets. Compute isn't particularly cheap.
Office stretches plus one exercise
You might benefit from installing earlyoom. It'll kill some of your processes before the system freezes from running out of memory.
Innovation is incentivized with greater returns. Just because those returns aren't excessively large, doesn't mean it's not there. You still get a net positive on innovating. Cigarettes are taxes in such a way that smoking at all is a net negative for most people. That's what makes it a disincentive.
Would Lex Fridman fit the bill? He runs in the same circle as Joe Rogan with similar guests, but generally just let's his guests speak instead of actively pushing nonsense, and especially not with the degree of confidence that Rogan does while being wrong. It'll still require you to listen critically, but that might be easier if you don't have someone actively pushing you in one direction.
You can cut down the trees and they'll still hold on to their carbon. Just don't burn them.
Food preference is very individual, so understandably, not everyone is going to have the same tastes as him. But that's a pretty poor reason to favour a different voice when it comes to objective claims on food science.