He endorsed a candidate who will eviscerate climate incentives, funded his campaign on a massive scale, and will serve in his administration. Those actions weigh a heavier than his lip service.
Actions speak louder than words is totally true, which is why I trust the guy who made us all drive electric cars over some random internet commentator.
ITT I see many people who seem to believe they can predict the future with perfect confidence, and that supporting evidence is not required for these predictions.
We are not living in a world that was created yesterday. Trump has been president before, we can look to that record when making predictions.
Last time he pulled out of the Paris accords and incentivized increased oil production, while making none of the massive investments in renewables and EVs that the Biden Administration would later make.
The "Asia/Jerusalem" weirdness is because Daylight Savings Time is a big church-and-state issue. Religious people want the workday to be convenient for holidays that start at sunset.
This led to decades (up to the mid-'00s) where Daylight Savings was the result of annual negotiations between religious and secular parties. It often caused problems when the decision wasn't made until juuuust before the transition date.
There are still exceptions built in to prevent Daylight Savings from ending on Rosh HaShanah, so that's probably the future stuff.
Reading this, and considering the limited advantages of DST (especially for a country that is relatively far to the south), I wonder why they didn't decide to scrap DST completely? Maybe they will if the EU eventually manages to do it?
I would argue that DST actually makes most sense in 30-40 degrees of latitude.
With about 13 hours of sunlight in the summer, split evenly around the mid-day, it comes down to 05h30 to 18h30 under light. There are many more people who would be out there to enjoy the sunlight between 18h30 and 19h30 than there are between 05h30 and 06h30.
I really dislike this argument of "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning" ignoring all of the other problems it causes.
Sunlight in the morning is useful. It's better for your sleep rhythms. It's safer for school children, etc.
And to be completely fair, I don't see that many more people "enjoying the sunlight" during the weekend when they have the entire day to do so. Like, what is the sun going down at 6 really preventing you from doing that you couldn't do otherwise?
> I really dislike this argument of "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning"
My argument is not "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning", my argument is "From what I can observe, most people would prefer an hour of sunlight at the end of the day rather than in its beginning". This is not about what I think, it's about what most people think.
> what is the sun going down at 6 really preventing you from doing
Again, my observation is that most people, given a choice of A. having sunlight between 5am and 6am; or B. having sunlight between 6pm and 7pm, would prefer option B, simply for the reason that more are awake during that time.
Did you take a poll, or do you just have the feeling that that is the case? Not to mention, it's a bit weaselly. It offsets the burden of defending the position to "most people".
And it doesn't even matter what "most people" think. "Most people" in this case, would be wrong. Even if it were "most people" and not "most people whose opinions you've happened to remember on the subject because they happen to align with yours".
And it's going to get darker earlier in winter. That's just what it does. People are really just lamenting the lack of daylight hours in general. Because during the winter, few places have sunlight during 6pm and 7pm even if we kept DST year round. What they say they want is sunlight between 5pm and 6pm. And after the clocks roll back, it'll start getting dark soon after 5.
And once again, I ask, for what? Having the sun rise just after 6am is better for everyone. School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer. Better driving when you're waking up. Everything is more in line with your circadian rhythms, etc.
It's summer we're talking about when we talk about DST. There's no DST in the winter.
> School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer.
For several months in the summer, the schools are closed. Other months during DST, the schools start at 08h00 and the vast majority of the kids wake up about seven-ish, to leave their house at about 07h30. It is inconsequential for the kids whether the sun has risen at 06h30 or at 05h30 that day; when they wake up, there's light outside anyway.
For the rest, let me give you an analogy. For several months this coming summer, I am going to give out an hour of free internet[0] each day. This won't interfere with the (paid) one that people are having otherwise. I'm not going to ask the question "would you prefer this hour to be between 05h30 and 06h30, or between 18h30 and 19h30?" but I am going to ask this question instead: What would the majority prefer, in your opinion?
[0] - any useful utility can be substituted: free hour of water, free hour of electricity, etc.
All the schools around where I live start between 7 and 8, which means kids are waiting for busses and walking between 6 and 7.
Sunrise will be at 7:12 tomorrow. Sunrise would be around 8am at the latest if we kept DST year-round.
There is less sun during the winter. That is how it works. Just in general.
Also, whenever we try "year-round DST" we go back to "spring-forward"/"fall-back" because it sucks. Everyone says they want it until they get it. Whereas Arizona has gotten rid of DST and we don't hear anything about them. They got rid of it in the 60s.
The nation should follow suit.
And all of this is outside the fact that time zones in general are more political than practical. Which is another reason people think they want year-round DST. It's because they're probably in the wrong time zone.
> DST actually makes most sense in 30-40 degrees of latitude.
I am not arguing for having "year-round DST", nor for not having any DST at all. All I'm saying is this: at 50th parallel, there's plenty of daylight in the summer, and so: people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. At 25th parallel, there's not much variance between summer and winter, so again, people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. It's in between -- or 30 to 40 -- that the summer daytime is both scarce and variable enough to make the twice-a-year change worthwhile.
Regarding your personal situation, I have no idea where you reside or what "the nation" is -- assuming US, I gather you have a "fall-back" change in three days, for a sunrise at 6:15am and up to 7am at the latest? If so, sounds like you've got it all figured out.
> DST exists so that the sun doesn't rise around 5am.
No, DST exists so the sun doesn't set around 6pm.
> And that seems to be what the argument boils down to: "I don't want it bright too early".
No, it's not "I", it's about "we the people", and "we the people" don't care as much about "bright too early", rather they care about "dark too early".
Here is a map of the offset between solar noon and civil noon[0]. The blue places have solar noon (sun in its highest position) before their local clocks show 12h00. The red places have solar noon after their clocks show that. The white places have it about the same time.
Several observations:
1. This is without DST. With DST, blue places turn red, and red places turn even more red.
2. The map is kinda outdated, the bluest most populous country -- Turkey -- moved an hour since, so now it's white at the east and red otherwise.
3. Greenland looks the size of Africa, which is a projection issue, in fact it's much smaller, and that's even before we talk about its minuscule population.
4. There are places like Recife in Brazil, where solar noon varies between 11h03 and 11h33, but they still have more than 12 hours of sunlight most of year, and never less than 11:45, so they hardly care.
5. The vast, vast majority of the world would rather have the solar noon after 12h00 -- meaning, more light in the evening than in the early morning. Santiago de Compostella has solar noon at 13h17 at the earliest and 14h40 at the latest, "relocating" around two hours.
6. The bluest city in the USA is probably Boston, and during standard time their solar noon is 11h30-11h59. During DST, it's 12h40-12h50.
Yeah. DST really boils down to tricking people to wake up earlier. But you can get all that sunshine by waking up earlier yourself at 5am. No need to force an awkward schedule change on everyone.
The EU likely won’t scrap it, because the CET countries want to stay in a common time zone (no new time zone borders) for economic reasons, but either the very Eastern or very Western ones in that range would object to permanent DST or permanent non-DST, because it would move them too far from the solar day either in winter or summer. It can’t be fixed without one country or another getting the short stick, which means it won’t be fixed.
If the continental US can do it (and it looks like it might soon, with California voting for it) I'm not sure I buy that argument. Heck if China can survive on one timezone...
They certainly could if they had started that way, but changing it now will disadvantage at least one of the countries (Spain for example), and those countries’ politicians don’t want to risk the ire of their voters for the greater good. And DST is regulated on the EU level, so can’t be changed by individual EU members without breaking EU law, like apparently individual US states can.
It’s status quo bias and loss aversion. Similar to how it would be better for the US to change their voting system, but it will never happen because it would disfavor one of the political parties who’d have to approve the change.
Nah, the States can’t. What we actually voted for, and I voted for this too, was that if Congress passed a law that enabled States to move to permanent DST, then the legislature is authorized to pass a law to move California to permanent DST. Congress hasn’t acted, and the main guy who was pushing for this isn’t in the legislature anymore, but basically the law did nothing except send a message from Californians saying “yeah, this sounds good, do it.” but technically it was never necessary.
States can opt-out of DST, as a few have done, but cannot choose permanent DST (assuming the relevant federal law would be deemed valid/constitutional).
Is that not true for Portugal, or Finland in the other direction for example? I haven’t seen clear reasons for why a 1-hour offset would seriously affect economic relations particularly if it doesn’t affect when businesses are operating. Spain is already known (in stereotypes, so not sure if this holds up in reality) for later start/end times to the workday or other engagements than most western/central European countries, probably partly a figment of the time zone.
I think it's the changing times that people don't like, rather than standard time.
I'd prefer California to stay on standard time instead of staying on DST, so noon will be aligned with solar noon. (It is, right? I never actually checked.)
It’s tempting to want to put stock in solar noon as the the thing the day should be aligned around, but honestly it’s probably overrated. Personally, I much prefer daylight savings time over standard time if I had to pick only one.
On July 8, 2013, the Knesset approved the bill to extend IDT even further. According to the bill, IDT will begin on the Friday before the last Sunday of March, and end on the last Sunday of October.[14]
Israel has similar artifacts, both of WW2 under the British Empire and of the subsequent austerity/rationing during the state's first decade.
1. During WW2 the British established a ration of "standard bread" to eliminate wheat imports. This is still the price-controlled bread type, and led to the replacement of some pita consumption.
2. The austerity years coincided with (and were in large part caused by) a rapid doubling of the population by expellees from Arab countries. Lots of them were used to rice, but with food rationing and price controls were in place, rice would have been a strain on government finances. So the state pushed "Ben Gurion Rice", aka Israeli/pearl couscous, a good-enough substitute that could be made from cheap American wheat imports.
I'm sure there's more hiding under the surface, I just don't know all the history.
The population of Israel approximately doubled from 1949 to 1965. It did so because of immigrants from places like Egypt, Iraq, and Yemen.
The overwhelming majority of those immigrants were not voluntary, but were forced to leave by formal expulsion (Egypt, semi-formal in Iraq); revocation of citizenship (Algeria, Libya); massive official discrimination (eg Syria); or simple mob violence (Libya again, Tunisia, Morocco). In Egypt there was a wonderful trick of forcing expellees to sign papers saying their departure was "voluntary".
In countries where only mob violence was involved (Morocco, Tunisia), some Jewish communities remained. Then there's the interesting Lebanese case, where the Jewish community thrived until targeted during the civil war.
But yeah, don't pretend that the complete nonexistence of Jewish communities in Yemen or Iraq or Egypt happened by chance.
From that article: "Telegrams between the Mossad agents in Baghdad and their superiors in Tel Aviv give the impression that neither group knew who was responsible for the attack." Also, "by 13 January 1951, nearly 86,000 Jews had already registered to immigrate, and 23,000 had already left for Israel".
And anyway, the Iraqi government had already begun and, after the bombings, accelerated a program of expulsion. Unless you're going to disavow Nuri as-Said as a "Zionist", the actual causes are Iraqi state policy.
Anyway, I'm done with this side tangent. Enjoy your fantasies about how 99% of Jews left Iraq and Egypt and Yemen, and 90% left Tunisia and Morocco, because of evil foreigners and the local Jews' disloyalty.
> The theory that "certain Jews" carried out the attacks "in order to focus the attention of the Israel Government on the plight of the Jews" was viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office
Sadly, it's becoming apparent that the only reason people believe in The Holocaust is the massive effort that went into documenting and preserving the direct evidence. The exodus of Jews from Arab and Muslim countries doesn't have museums and isn't part of school curricula, so it's easier to deny.
Hundreds of thousands of people, whether Palestinian, Jewish, Desi, or German, don't tend to move en masse without violence.
People who hold a mental model of Israel as a White European Colonizer seem to simply reject the idea that it absorbed more than a half million fleeing Black & Brown Jews in its first decades of existence. If they even accept that 90% of the Jews in Arab countries suddenly left without their property and money, they insist that it was a voluntary move due to inherent Jewish disloyalty to their broader societies.
Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians didn't get up one day and move fifteen miles down the road because they all felt like going on a picnic at the same time.
Interestingly, the term "ethnic cleansing" wasn't coined until the 1990s. The 20th century push for ethnic self determination came with an understanding that people would have to be moved to form concentrated and contiguous populations that could self determine. Millions of people were forced to move in the 1940s to establish India, Pakistan, and a more Slavic Soviet Union.
You're right hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced off their land by Zionists terrorists during Nakba, just like what's happening today in Gaza.
Not entirely, but in part! You can see the effect in this animation of asteroid discoveries over time, where the discoveries are concentrated in bursts facing directly away from Earth, or directly parallel to its orbit.
The tiles are very similar; the attachment system is very different (a big part of why Shuttle's were a pain to maintain) and Starship's simple shape means most of the tiles are the same (the ridiculous number of SKUs was another factor in Shuttle TPS costs).
Other way around - with foreknowledge of how fast the FAA was working, SpaceX scheduled the launch last week to be one day after the expected license issue.
2 is rather irrelevant to the intended use case: devices connecting to a network with pre-shared credentials. Think cash registers and crop humidity sensors connecting to the internet, not cafe wifi.
1 is kind of unavoidable if you want a massively shared medium, mildly reliable connections once set up, and decent throughput.
1 is not unavoidable. I’ve never gotten a clear answer on the explanation, but the most reasonable ones involve power-saving and frequency-saving strategies (only poll for new connections for a few hundred microseconds per second). And I think these are eminently solvable.
On 2, my question isn’t “why haven’t they fixed #2 for this use case?” it’s “where does the effort to address this relatively small use case come from while #2 remains unaddressed “?
A few hundred microseconds is not enough time to send an announcement at the low bitrates required for noisy channels, and then you need to multiply it by the number of cells in a collision domain. This is a hard limit of information theory and physics.
And it is possible for the vast array of computer scientists in the world to work on more than one thing at a time; this particular work was done by a small team, whose specialties are in any case not suitable for work on better open authentication/consent protocols.
My memory of the consensus, the last time this topic came up, is that the number is in fact less than a hundred microseconds. But it doesn't matter for my point if it's a few milliseconds or whatever. The problem is solvable.
They don't need to have been underwater; the steel just has to have been made pre-1945. The steelmaking process incorporates of lot of gases into the final product.
Comment on the documentation/README more than anything - I couldn't find anywhere a list of specific languages supported. That's a pretty important data point for any speaker of an African language hoping to use this IME. If the library supports only Amhari and Ge'ez (the only two languages mentioned specifically) it's extremely important to a Wolof or Swahili speaker to know that when evaluating if the IME is in a usable state for them.
1. Cynically, for bureaucrats to be able to claim they're doing something about an issue the politicians care about, but which the bureaucrats think is a non-issue.
2. Less cynically, to take away plausible deniability for the torrenter about whether the thing is allowed or not.
Actions speak louder than words.
reply