This is accurate, and gets into the somewhat more straightforward question of why branded drugs are expensive. Those seemingly ridiculous prices do indeed reflect a lot of very costly R&D, including for the host of medications that failed Phase II and III trials.

Generic medications, on the other hand, really should be expected to correlate somewhat with wholesale prices once there's competition. This does hold true for the (much healthier and more functional) over-the-counter drug market.

To clarify, that's true, individual pharmacies don't generally negotiate this and wouldn't really have the negotiating power to begin with. The actual process is harder to understand, let alone ELI5, but involves a twisted mess of negotiations among manufacturers, large pharmacy chains, insurers, and a bizarre and increasingly unethical middle-man company called a pharmacy benefit manager.

Superb song, but I'm reluctantly in agreement with Mick et al. that on a two-side LP there just wasn't a good spot for it that would balance side length as well as flow of fast vs. slow songs. It's that kind of higher-level arranging that makes 'Rumours' even more than the sum of its parts.

Personally, I just wait a minute after "Gold Dust Woman" then put on the single of "Silver Springs" as a graceful coda to the album.

Basically, yes. All prices are ultimately set by mutual negotiation. The problem with being an ordinary person in the current US drug market is that the pharmacy has already negotiated with insurance companies and signed contracts on the price of each medicine. To negotiate effectively and keep the lights on, the pharmacy must constantly press for higher rates, because the insurer will always press for lower rates. This constant arms race means the sticker price can be hugely inflated, while the insurance price is much lower. Both prices have very little to do with the wholesale cost of medication, which can mostly be made very cheaply.

Part of honoring that contract is charging that inflated price to anyone without insurance, because if they charged you $4 instead of $100 the insurer could sue for breach of contract, and refuse to pay more than $4. The pharmacy would actually love to still sell you medication at any profitable rate, but legally can't. GoodRx simply steps in to act like an insurer to negotiate rates, allowing the pharmacy to offer a discount that still makes some money. GoodRx still won't make branded drugs very cheap because the maker has a monopoly and there's no competition.

Conversely, a place like Cost Plus Drugs has its own suppliers for medication and doesn't work with insurance, so it can always charge a price that more directly reflects drug cost+labor+shipping+profit.

Coffeeshops are a striking example of this, as they have a very long history of functioning as a semi-public gathering space where people spend long periods of time relaxing, talking, working, reading, and so on. The price of a cup of coffee is really more like the price of entrance and the fee to stay there.

To add to the why question: The 1940s were a pretty terrifying time in human history. A few powerful countries were under the total control of people who believed their country was superior and had the right to overrun the world around them. Every major country was trying as hard as possible to make the most effective weapons to win the war. In 1941-42, it looked entirely possible that Germany was going to overrun the Soviet Union, murder or starve most of the people living in Eastern Europe, and be in an invulnerable position controlling Europe with an eye towards the Middle East, while Japan might control much of Asia. The idea of a bomb that could destroy a city looked like the one thing that could defeat Germany and save civilization. The U.S. and U.K. poured a lot of money and top scientists into it because it looked like a war-winner. (Fun fact: The project to develop the B-29 bomber, which dropped the first atomic bomb, was actually more expensive than the bomb project.) In the end, the Soviets fought like hell, the Western allies invaded as well, and Germany lost a conventional war, so Japan got bombed instead.

This pairs with the reality that even our fairly recent ancestors had limited access to those nutrients. Honey required getting past bees, wild fruits were small and tart, salt was irregularly available, and fat had to be hunted down and killed. The idea of constant availability of as much fat/sugar/salt as you want, in as many varieties as you can imagine, didn't apply.

Furthermore, the consequences are limited on the time scale that affects natural selection. Humans can reproduce by their teens and raise the child to reproductive age by their 30s, long before obesity is likely to kill you.

Being a trading port, Guangzhou was home to Portuguese traders who heard local pronunciations as Cantão, which led to the older English name Canton, which lives on in our name for the Cantonese language/dialect.

Let's limit the answer to food/drink taste, which is actually more smell than taste. The brain is always trying to figure out if something in the mouth is good nutritious food or bad poison. In general, bitter and decomposed or moldy things=bad, sweet/salty/fatty/proteiny things=good, and sour is variable. The first time you eat something, you have limited information beyond basic patterns. Young babies need lots of nutrition and have parents to help, so they like all kinds of things, but toddlers are capable of finding something toxic, so they get pickier.

So, the first time you try coffee, your brain's reaction is likely "this is very strongly flavored and bitter, probably poison." Try it a few more times, and your brain gets used to it, confirms nothing bad was associated with it last time, and may start to associate it with positives like mild stimulation. Conversely, if you throw up after eating a food you used to like, it may be a while before you regain your desire for it--now your brain has evidence it was poison and should be avoided.

It's called postprandial somnolence, and it's not perfectly understood, partly because there's a lot of stuff potentially going on. We know there's a big shift with eating from the "fight or flight" sympathetic nervous system to the "rest and digest" parasympathetic nervous system, and this shift means overall low energy and a drive to reduce muscle use and send blood to the gut instead. There are probably a bunch of other shifts in the brain that contribute, though. Interestingly, chemicals like histamine and orexin that regulate appetite also strongly regulate sleep (i.e. blocking histamine makes you sleepy and hungry.)

This is the result of a big push for reform, saying "the benefits of making this one very safe and easy to use antidote widely available greatly outweight the harms, because people are dropping like flies from opioid overdose and many are afraid to seek care or can't afford it." Moreover, if the average person squirts Narcan up their nose, nothing really happens. If these average person gives themselves a shot of epinephrine, they're going to get quick and clear side effects, some of which are dangerous in the wrong person. You could still make a case for over the counter but it's not as clear.