This requires at least 12 seconds in a microwave, or 15 seconds if you're above 4,000 feet in elevation.

It's not about disclosure, they're just trying to enforce their monopoly on repairing their hardware and charging whatever they'd like to do it.

I don't have any evidence for this, but my Brazilian wife tells me that their census doesn't have race, it has "color", and they get upwards of 50 different responses. They're a very multi-cultural country.

I find it weird how humans categorize ourselves differently from other animals. Animals have species, sub-species, breeds, etc, but not race, and humans have race but not breed or whatever else. No one has ever asked me what breed I am. If the same characteristics that distinguish black people from white people were seen in animals, scientists would be arguing that it's a different species. Yet we don't have races of tigers, Siberian tigers, Bengal tigers, and Sumatran tigers are different species or sub-species. All humans are Homo sapiens sapiens, plus some other bits mixed in, but we treat each other like we're different species. It's silly and arbitrary, and largely political. Which is one reason it's so difficult to have a meaningful discussion about race. A large distinction of race, quite frankly, is how a person is seen and treated by society. Two different people who are half white and half black might be treated very differently based on whether the person looks more white and more black. Some of those people say they identify as black just because that's how society sees and treats them, even though they have a white parent.

Does it though? Or is it just suggesting that being white is under attack, period? I mean, I don't see any connection between the statement and suggesting anything about black people at all. It seems like people are reading things into that statement which aren't actually there.

Couldn't it also be said that this discussion is trying to discredit and end the discussion about white people being under attack?

I'm not trying to take a side here, I wasn't aware this was even a slogan or whatever, but it sounds like people are certainly trying to shut down this discussion, and I've seen several people claim that statement means various things that it doesn't really seem like it means. It doesn't mention any race other than white people, for example, but people keep saying it means something about black people specifically.

It just seems odd to me that if someone stands up and says "It's OK to be black. It's OK to be brown. It's OK to be white." that one of those three statements is racist. It seems like people are trying to shut down a discussion by just saying you can't say that. And, how is anyone to know? It seems like unless we follow specific news or specific sources that we might inadvertently say something that people think is racist. Shouldn't we have a discussion about that, also? The statement itself it not racist. It is OK to be any color, and that statement is not racist regardless of which color you choose to use in it.

This is just weird. People are insane.

That sounds like a huge stretch. Why aren't they just saying "don't treat me or my opinion any differently just because of my skin color?" I mean, how is saying it's OK to be white "tacitly" saying anything at all about black people? Or did you mean "non-white" people?

Don't be disingenuous. If you want to speak biologically, race doesn't exist at all, every Homo sapiens sapiens is the same race. If you want to speak practically, white is just as much a race as black. The categories on the US Census for race are white, black, Asian, native Hawaiian or Pacific islander, American Indian or Alaskan native, and two or more. And it is just as "OK" or "not OK" to be any one of those as it is to be any other, or any mix. None of them fundamentally deserve to be treated any differently than any other in any situation, all other things being equal (assuming you're not talking about incidence of disease or something like that).

I should clarify that I'm looking for a link or direct quote or reference to what he said, rather than someone paraphrasing it.

Having not followed this story, and knowing nothing about Notch except 1) he calls himself Notch, 2) he made Minecraft, and 3) he sold it to Microsoft for billions, what exactly did he say that people are upset about?

You'd think, but then again a lot of people really don't mind having one as president.

That's another good option.

That's just the price they pay for wanting to live in the northern quarter of the planet I suppose, where daylight might be less than 9 hours. I'm sure they'll figure it out without expecting the rest of the country to change their clocks. If they refuse to change their perceptions then I guess they're setting themselves up for an irritating life for no good reason. That, too, is not my problem.

So if a business is open for 12 hours a day, and they have their lights on while they're open, and turn the lights off a certain amount of time after they close, you're suggesting that power consumption for those lights changes based on things like the time of the year or the time of day? At what time of day does a light bulb that is turned on use the least amount of electricity?

If they decide to open their businesses before sunrise then they most certainly are the ones choosing that. I don't understand the confusion. It's not like there's a federal law which states that any public business needs to be open no later than 8am or whatever. Open when the sun is out if that's important to you, regardless of whatever the clock says.

There are places in the US, like Seattle, which experience fewer than 9 hours of sunlight in a day in the winter. If they want to be open for 10 hours a day, is it possible to do that in a way where both commutes are during the light? Of course not, absolutely no amount of fucking with a clock is going to give you more than 9 hours of sunlight in one day. But people make the choice to live there, so they're choosing to deal with that. They understand the sun is going to set before 5pm and not come up again until 8am. It's just a fact of life, and I'm not going to change my clock in Arizona because people move up there and realize that the days are much shorter.

It does not matter at all if it's always standard time or always DST or whatever. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DAMN CLOCK SAYS, open your business at a time that you want to open and close it whenever you want to. It does not matter what time the clock says when you do these things. That is not important. If people need to get used to the fact that school starts at 10am, they'll get used to it. It's not a big fucking deal and I have no idea why people are using so many words to talk about this issue. It doesn't deserve it. It's a really really simple issue. People need to quit thinking that all businesses need to be open at 8am or some arbitrary time on the clock. They don't.

That's a nice anecdote, but that's not what TFA is about. Did you even read it? These are a series of websites set up to look like "local news" even though they aren't. They share content, syndicate other content, etc. One of them even had the weather for the wrong state because they forgot to change that when setting up the new site. The few people running these "local news" sites are conservative activists, people involved with political campaigns, PACs, etc. They run stories promoting their candidates or causes, deriding their opponents, etc. They do not disclose that they have any connection with the people they are writing about, they do not disclose the obvious conflicts of interest. They make the stories appear like a journalism story without stating the political nature of the story and its authors, that it is nothing more than a political ad wrapped up as "news." The reason they do this is because of polls showing that people find local news to be more reliable and trustworthy. So they create "local news" sites in battleground states - where they are not themselves based - and try to pawn off their political ads as local news stories to take advantage of that local trust.

This is fundamentally different from a publication whose staff generally leans one way or the other. If you're not seeing why that's worth noting, then you're the person they're trying to fool. And you're defending them for it.

You're pretty confused, aren't you?

"The day" isn't some arbitrary number on a clock, it's the 12 or so hours centered around when the sun is at its peak. When you understand this then I'll explain "the night," that will REALLY blow your mind!

Why the fuck would a business catering to the public decide to open its doors when everyone is sleeping? "BUT the sign on the door says we have to be open from 9am to 5pm (whatever "pm" is supposed to be!), and there's no timezone listed on the sign so we HAVE to be open from 9 GMT to 17 GMT! We have no choice! The sign dictates it!"

Here's a crazy motherfucking idea, and I'm going to go quick so try to stick with me: if your business depends on the sun being out, then be open when it's out. If it depends on the sun being down, then be open when it's down. I hope I didn't move too quickly.