Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "Johnny Harris" channel.

  1.  @krazyito  they wash the eggs. Which, yes, gets rid of any stray chicken poop or whatever from the shell, but also strips it of the very properties that protect the Inside of the egg from diseases and such. If you don't wash them, they don't need refrigerating. Also, something about pasteurization. I'm not sure if that was that the US did or did not pasteurize the eggs, but I recall it being relevant. Also, something about eggs means that once you've refrigerated them once, you then have to Keep them refrigerated until you use them. It's a non-issue if you just don't to start with though. Where I live, the eggs don't get washed (though I suspect Something is done, because they're basically never dirty*), and they don't get put in a refrigerator until they reach the one in your house (and I think that's as much to do with fridges having special egg holding compartments as anything else). *Actually, I believe this is largely a product of the environment the chickens are kept in.
    10
  2. Whatever one may think about him and his works otherwise, on this he is quite correct.
    4
  3. ... in significant portions of the English speaking world, in casual speech, using "like" in such a manner has come to mean "the impression I got was" or "I remember it being something along these lines", or even "I really wanted to react in this manner, but that wouldn't have gone well so I didn't". The point is that you're reporting on the interaction but Not actually quoting what was said (in contrast with "said" which always supposedly meant you Were, even when that was absolutely impossible).
    2
  4. Indeed. Apple, after all, makes a tonne of money out of Not fixing theirs (and going out of their way to stop anyone else from doing so either). Just as an example.
    2
  5. Depends on your dialect at this point. (Also, the word "oft," rarely used these days but closely related to "often," would like a word.) Unlike many other things that people insist are acceptable, this matter has no impact on one's intelligibility.
    1
  6. Turns out, Robin Hood actually had a major liquidity problem (not enough cash to cover the collateral they were legally required to put up for the buy orders they were facilitating) but admitting That was Terrible for their business prospects, so they lied about it... Which, in the context of what was going on, made it Look Like they were colluding to manipulate the market when they were actually just complying with regulations designed to protect the investors (including the reddit level guys) from bad actors at Robin Hood's level in the system... And lying about why they needed to. The regulations aren't particularly common knowledge, but the fact that they were lying about Something was very obvious. They basically didn't have the money necessary to support the Rate of trading that was happening. Other newer, smaller, brokers had the same or similar problems, but some were more honest about it, while older, more established brokers with deeper pockets to cover collateral requirements with, could handle the volume of purchase orders and thus had no problems and no need to limit trading.
    1
  7. Crush them and toss some stewed or canned fruit in the bowl, drown it in milk and let it go soggy,and it becomes decidedly less sad. Soggy is important, if it still crunches it hasn't absorbed the milk and fruit flavours yet. (Just, you know, don't leave it sitting around long enough that the water from the milk and fruit evaporates back Out of it, not only is the result disgusting to eat, it's an absolute pain to clean off the plate). You Can use (small amounts of) sugar instead of fruit, and I believe most grain based milk-substitutes work just fine too. There's a reason eating whole, dry, weet-bix (or equivalent) with nothing added to them is a challenge people only do to show off. Or, you know, just eat muesli instead. There's a lot of variety to be had, some of it pretty good.
    1
  8.  @JH-tc7wb  problem is, they get their money from advertising. Advertisers pay based on how many people are watching and how often their adds are shown. This encourages short content segements that are almost entirely taken up by recaps and "coming up next" bits, and long and/or frequent ad breaks, and news chosen based not on what you need to know, but what they can best draw out the hype for while expending as few resources as possible to get (which in practice cones down to flat out making things up more often than one might hope). And if that's Not the case it's because they're entirely bought and paid for by usually unspecified interests. Generally speaking, well run state owned news networks tend to avoid those pitfalls, and have known and predictable biases that are easier to compensate for, and actually have Less interest in exploiting psychological weaknesses in their audience. The problem comes when it shifts from "public information resource" to "ruling party propaganda organ". (I think the short terms between elections are one of several factors that helps New Zealand avoid that problem.). Better, stil, it's very easy to work around the biases simply by watching the equivalent news from two or three countries whose areas of interest don't overlap (opposite positions aren't as helpful as you'd think. Different degrees of investment in the issue has a bigger effect.). Unless said foreign news is being censored by your government, but that tells you what you need to know all by itself. (The TV news here does have its issues, but quality of reporting isn't a particularly big one. The writers being overly fond of puns and dad-jokes on the other hand...)
    1