GendingMachine
We watched videos of the horrors of the American healthcare system for the same reason as we watched videos and were otherwise taught about oppressive regimes, international poverty, bigotry and racism both local and international - to learn about global issues, to gain a wider perspective on the world, to be knowledgeable about the many ways in which a society can fail it's most vulnerable. Such as, for instance, letting your poor die and suffer from preventable, curable illnesses.
Oh, and I have no such ideological commitment to the monarchy, I and most people I know would choose to abolish it in a heartbeat. It is here, as it is everywhere, the conservative right clinging onto traditions, ideologies and policies that have long since proven unproductive, disfunctional or outright harmful.
The monarchy may well underpin much of how British law and government works, and that is something we should work to change - just as you in the US should work to change those parts of your founding constitution written almost 300 years ago that no are no longer to the benefit of yourselves and your country.
Here in the UK our NHS is a goddamn mess, it's cracking and creaking and bureaucratic, but every American expat i have ever known who now lives in the UK has horror stories about how much worse it is over there. In our monthly social classes (PSHCE) we watched documentaries of poor Americans unable to afford healthcare, and it horrified us all.
You can't run healthcare as a profit seeking enterprise, it just doesn't work, the financial incentives of healthcare providers just fundamentally do not align with their customers. Government run institutions can often fall into a state of bureaucratic atrophy but if this and countless other stories make clear - that's an issue with institutions in general, whether they be government run or not.
This problem will not improve until you get over your ideological commitment to trying to solve every problem with markets. Healthcare must be socialised, anything less is barbarism.
Most specifically, often when encountering a situation in which I have two slightly different classes/types that need to be polymorphic with each other, all the standard non-inheritance based approaches seem to require a lot of outright identical code implementing a shared interface, a bunch of boilerplate composition proxy methods that just point to methods in a composed class, or weird and obscure language features that never really feel like the "intended" approach.
Typescript especially seems to demand really awkward and obtuse implementations of basic mixins or abstract classes and the like, I always feel like I'm missing the more "intended" approach whenever I try to share code between similar classes.
Often discussions around this are awash with talk of traits and delegates and other cool features that seem to only exist in a handful of languages, and never the ones I happen to be required to use at that given moment.
There is a vast difference between terms used by marginalised groups to refer to dominant ones, and terms used by dominant groups to refer to marginalised ones.
Whether or not this policy itself is effective or well-considered, the broader mission to identify ways in which historic injustice is ingrained and perpetuated through our language and try to amend it is a noble one.
There are many words throughout history that have been common place but carried so much cultural baggage that they became damaging and were thus abandoned - most terms we now consider slurs were once defended with arguments of similar merits to your own.
The process of improving our language is never going to be an easy one, no doubt many found it challenging to fully excise many of our abandoned terms from their vocabulary, but it's been done before, and will likely be done indefinitely into the future unless we ever reach a point of such equality that our language can no longer cause harm.
Cocaine doesn't really help because it just dramatically increases the intensity and energy of your current state, it doesn't really alter your thinking in a way that could introduce positive thoughts not already present.
If psychedelics had similarly severe downsides then they would likely not be effective at aiding depression in the long run, but fortunately it has relatively few issues with careful use.
I know it's a fairly minor feature and one manipulated often by some websites, but I've still found it massively increases my chances of picking a relevant and up to date result. I didn't even realise how much I used it until I found myself getting extremely frustrated about its absence in DDG.