It strikes me that they're reversing cause and effect on practically everything they've listed. Of course the AVERAGE meal size is going to go up when larger numbers of people are overweight... Obviously larger, hungry people are going to order more food. All their numbers fall into the same trap.

As an alternative explanation, lifestyle change seems a good candidate. More people are working more hours, so they're eating more convenience foods, and more are working less labor-intensive jobs? so are getting less physical activity that would otherwise increase their base metabolism and keep their weight down. And this has a nasty feed-back loop, with heavier people less likely to get physical activity and more prone to over-eat even further. Just one possible explanation that doesnt demonize the usual suspects that are all too easy to villify.

Other causes of reduced physical activity could include increasing urbanization and densification, wide adoption of indoor climate control, and many, many more.

We could alternatively go with wider exposure to chemicals like pthalates (like BPA) which have a known causal relationship to weight gain as the sole (hypothetical) cause, fitting all the same data points with no trouble.

To really get some evidence requires forcing a single varible to change in a limited test group... Pick one portion of the US, and have all the fast food restaurants in the area increase their portion sizes, then see if obesity gets worse there, or does not. Without such rigor, all the statistics Vox and others in the media can come up with are just a lot of hot air that sheds no light on the problem.

Cart before horse. Oscars are less popular because it's obvious they're a bunch of pretentious hipsters signaling how enlightened they are by voting for movies nobody can stand to watch. Forcing one category where you can't avoid voting for something mainstream doesn't solve the problem in any way, maybe allowing the problem to fester that much longer as they attack symptoms of the disease.

Other similarly cheap, quick and easy meals which don't require refrigeration include: boxes of mac & cheese, instant rice, stuffing, powdered potatoes, peanut butter crackers, cans of beans... etc

I only went without refrigeration for a brief period, but it left an indelible impression. It's always on my mind how much of my food will need to be trashed if my refrigerator quits suddenly, and I prefer shelf stable versions of foods (eg canned rather than frozen) where possible.

I'm not given to being blinded by nostalga. I did rewatch it recently, and I still rate it as a very good movie. It absolutely is hobbled by being slower paced than it needed to be, and the DVD extras show it could have been worse-yet. But there are several extent performances by great actors, the story is intelligent and complex and tackles serious subjects that aren't often represented in a mainstream films. The visuals and production value is amazing, and it manages to be family friendly without condescending to the audience or simplifying subjects to a ridiculous degree. Still, yes, it is slow, which makes it less easy to watch.

Spielberg almost never strays very far from his formula... Trying to tackle serious subjects, but always a little childish and soft in their handling. Honestly Hook has an awful lot in common with Jurassic Park, and many other acclaimed Spielberg films. That it wasn't as successful as planned on the first run makes no difference to me.

You could have a navigation system without the GPS satellites. You'd just need the map data, a compass, a way to tie into your car's odometer, and some way to orient the system one time... the latter could be a person inputting the approximate start address, or a camera pointing out the window reading street signs once in a while.
The magic of smartphones is that they got huge economies of scale for equipment that can do all these things, driving the price down from thousands of dollars, to trivially inexpensive. The business models of subsidizing the equipment with the monthly service plan, and manufacturers selling at a loss to try and break into the lucrative market also greatly help drive prices down to the point you can pick one up for $30 today.

Are you aware that this site's SSL certificate has been expired for months? It pops up as a nasty warning when anyone goes to sign in. If you remain signed in, you may not see it.

Anybody who has built a solar powered RV will tell you that panels on the vehicle are a bad idea. If you need direct solar exposure, you can't go park in the shade of a tree. That means you're probably going to spend your entire power budget running the air conditioning, as RVs aren't insulated a fraction as well as homes, and certainly don't have a fraction the thermal mass to ride through the warmer parts of the day without active cooling. The better option is portable panels you can set up on the ground, several feet away from your camp site, so they can get full sun, while you stay in the shade.

Not long ago there was a chart of home improvement projects, and how much they increase the resale value. The upshot is: you're lucky to get 75% of what you spent, back. Homes go up in value because the property has value as long as there is demand, NOT because there's some bigger idiot out there, who wants a certain style of home, and keeps buying more houses trying to get it...

There are excellent low flow shower heads quite inexpensively available, like the Niagara 1.25gpm. Even if you run it at full blast, and even if you need the hottest possible water, a typical 30 gal tank will last 24mins. More realistically, 45 mins is likely. In best cases, it could be much longer.

There can't be such a thing as a nice homeless camp, or else people who could afford rent will opt not to. There needs to be enough friction to prevent that, and keep the problem limited.
Personally, I think the areas in the US with the cheapest cost off living should be identified, and any volunteers will get moved out there, with a monthly housing voucher. Seems the cheapest possible option, actually, and one that offers the most dignity and stability, with the best chance of upward mobility.

If pollution falls on a ice sheet, and there's nobody around to breathe it, does it make a stink? If there has to be pollution somewhere in the world, I'm hard pressed to think of a better place than 200km from nowhere, in a frozen arctic wasteland.

Greenland is making a lot of noise about this issue, because they want to get some money out of it, but the site and presumably the cleanup was a NATO contribution by a member state, while the US paid the bulk for the men and materials. Somebody agreed to share the check, and decades later changed their mind. They have infinitely more of a case against Denmark than the USA.

Somebody has never heard of Anders Breivik... American mass shootings are tame by comparison.

Each nation has its own unique problems that look horrible and ridiculous to outsiders. The sad truth is, there are no easy fixes for social issues, and it's actually quite likely this trend WILL spread to other nations.

Typical Disney... call it a true story, then fictionalize the entire story beginning to end. The ONLY thing true about it, is that there was a Jamaican bobsled team that year. Absolutely nothing else.

TVOM doesn't have it's facts straight either, which isn't surprising for a click baity site.