This transfers money from the advertiser to the advertising agency, without creating a sale for the advertiser. This devalues the services of the agency.

I heard that Trump jumped up and down and threw his juice box when JD explained he couldn’t pardon her.

For most of the past 110 years or so since DST was implemented, for 3/4 of the year, we have had solar noon occurring at 13:00 in the center of each time zone. You’re already living with it most of the time. We’ve established school schedules, work schedules, industrial schedules, laws (such as curfews, noise ordinances, parking enforcement) and all sorts of infrastructure on the idea that for 3/4 of the year, there will be one more hour of daylight after 12:00pm than there is before 12:00 pm.

Either approach we take, we are going to upend a wide variety of laws, rules, practices, and customs that have been established over the past century. Adopting legacy standard time is going to impact events over 3/4 of the year; adopting permanent DST is going to impact events over 1/4 of the year.

We should select the system that minimizes disruption. That system is DST.

Outdoor trades tend to start work around 7am, when noise ordinances are lifted, and knock off a couple hours after midday, to avoid the heat of summer. With midday at 11:30, summer sunrise was three hours before they could even start their work. All those cool morning hours, perfect for hard work, completely wasted, while workers suffer heat exhaustion in the afternoon.

Fortunately, we have only rarely used legacy time in summer in the past hundred years. We’ve built our legal and industrial infrastructure on the premise that solar noon will occur sometime between 12:30 and 13:30 local time for 8-9 months of the year.

Maintaining that historical expectation with permanent summer time will greatly reduce the transition to a “locked clock”.

Depends what you mean by “abnormal”.

It is not “normal” for solar noon to occur ante meridiem in some places, and post meridiem in others. Yet, legacy standard time requires this: the west end of the time zone experiences solar noon at 11:30 in the morning, or even earlier in some cases.

Improved time has the entire time zone experience midday in the PM.

We use improved time for 3/4 of the year; its hard to say that the more common time system is the “abnormal” one. The legacy time system might once have been considered a “standard”, but so were 8-track tapes at one point. (But that’s the wrong metaphor here… “Standard time” went out of fashion before reel-to-reel, before electrically-driven record players. The last time “standard time” was in common use was shortly before broadcast radio was developed. State-of-the-art audio playback was replacing hand-cranked record players with spring-loaded clockwork players. Suffice it to say, “Standard” time hasn’t been “standard” in more than a hundred years. )

We have evolved a superior alternative that has become the de facto standard in everything but name.

Legacy time was developed by the robber barons in the late 19th century, to support industry. Improved time is an adjustment to that standard to favor the needs of the worker for rest and recreation. We cannot allow modern oligarchs to keep us on this outdated legacy system.

You’re telling them to “change” their own working hours in a way that would eliminate the effects of the time change. You’re telling them to set their hours as if the time change didn’t occur.

You could just stop automatically changing their hours twice a year.

The clocks are fine for 9 months out of the year. All of the problems occur in the remaining three months, and only occur because we arbitrarily change everyone’s working hours with no good reason. Stop pushing everyone to a bullshit “winter” schedule for three months, when the normal summer schedule works just fine.

So, you’re saying that there might actually be some daylight left to do something after the work day / school day is over?

Noon should be as close to midday as possible but never before midday.

On standard time, on the west end of the time zones, midday occurs at or before 11:30 AM. That is ridiculous.

Imagine going to work and writing March 31st on documents all morning, and April 1st all afternoon.

You might remember that you have an appointment on the 5th. But, when you wake up on the 5th, you’ve already missed it.

I can accept that. So long as after we lock the clocks on standard time, my region is allowed to switch to the next time zone to the west.

I don’t think the “noon = midday” argument is complete. I think noon should be close to, but never before midday. Midday should never occur at 11:30 AM, like it currently does on the western ends of the zones.

If you are arguing for permanent standard time and you are on the eastern end of your time zone, you are making the same argument as someone advocating DST from the western end.

It also depends on your location within your particular time zone. You can’t have noon at the same time of day on both the eastern and western end of the zone.

We aren’t all having the same argument. Solar noon should, indeed, be close to chronological noon, but that will only ever be true in the center of the time zone.

On “standard time” on the western end of a time zone, solar noon is (ostensibly) 11:30 am, while on the eastern end, it’s 12:30. Under DST, those times shift to 12:30 and 13:30, respectively. In zones wider than 15 degrees, there can be more than an hour difference.

When the eastern end of the zone argues for permanent Standard Time, and the western end of the zone argues for permanent DST, both ends are arguing for the same preference.

“Midday” (solar noon) should indeed be close to noon, but midday should never be before 12:00pm.

The solution is to lock the clocks on one system or the other, and allow political subdivisions to move the line so their clocks work best for them.

Best I can do is a Central American shooting war.

deleted by creator

As a US-ian, I really wish you guys would keep reminding us that if you did join the US, you’d be a 51st state slightly larger and left of California.

The GOP wants nothing to do with Canada. They cringe every time they think about ya’ll voting in our elections.

All the stupid fuck had to do was lock the clocks, ending the time change.

I discovered a simple upgrade for the infotainment systems in most cars. The screens work perfectly well with either suction or adhesive-mount phone holders.

Even the shittiest phone is a major upgrade compared to any built-in infotainment system.

I didn’t even know I needed to edit my prompt, but now I don’t know how I have lived with it for so long.

The hurdle to this kind of fast charging isn’t the tech in the car nor is it the tech in the charger. It’s powering the fucking things.

Agreed.

would require a nuclear reactor sitting out back to supply the required 1.2 Megawatts of power!

Eh…

At 5 minutes a car, each charger would be able to accommodate 12 cars per hour. The 12-charger station, fed by that nuclear reactor, would be able to handle 144 per hour.

A typical gas station that size has an 8500 gallon tank, and refills 2-5 times per week. That amount of fuel will serve somewhere between 1000 to 3000 cars per week, or about 6 to 18 cars per hour.

This doesn’t call for a nuclear reactor at the station. This calls for a sufficiently large battery pack at each station that can “trickle” charge continuously. I say “trickle” - if I did my math right, it would be about as much power as 15 hot tubs or 60 water heaters. About as much as a grocery store, with all its freezers, refrigerators, lights, HVAC, etc.

Certainly a lot of power, but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. On-site solar installations could offset a significant percentage of that demand.

Agreed. And I certainly use a GUI more than a command line.

My point is only that the command line should not be considered “unfriendly” to the user.

I don’t think “intuitive” is the proper metric for determining user friendliness. I think “ease of accomplishing a given task” is much more important. There are many tasks for which the command line is faster and simpler than using a GUI. Windows tends to hide these simpler, faster methods from the user. By regularly exposing the user to the CLI, Linux pushes the user to learn them.

Every button click is a dialog with the computer. It presents you with options and context, and waits for you to make a decision. Using a GUI, even simple tasks are going to take several dialogs to accomplish.

Most of the time, though, the user knows the exact task that needs to be accomplished, and is just appeasing the computer by going through each dialog to get to the point.

In these cases, the command line can enable the user to skip all that uneccessary dialog and go straight to execution of the intended task. I would say that this is not “unfriendly”.

True.

Of course, I normally use a GUI on Linux to control WiFi, so that’s not a particularly good example.

I regularly use shell scripts. I do know how to use the GUI to change file permissions to make them executable. But why would I open a file manager, browse to the file location, right click, select properties, select permissions, and save, instead of just firing off “chmod a+x *.sh”?

The last shell script I made for work automatically concatenated a bunch of PDF documents, applied a watermark, and printed two copies, all using command line utilities. A simple task that would take several minutes for the user to perform with GUI tools.

This was a simple task that was regularly performed by several users. The command line gave the user a simple, consistent method to automate this task. To my way of thinking, that makes the command line more user-friendly: it does not limit the user to the pre-configured operations allowed by the GUI.