It's NOT a good start. But there are clearly reasons why it's a (slightly) better choice than doing nothing. It really doesn't work for abstruse technical points to be decided by a popular vote. It doesn't even work for reasonably straightforward points. I expect that if you had a vote on "what is 3 + 7" and took a weighed result you'd get something other than 10.
That's not what a brief web search indicates. But I I remember my history class correctly, they denied the name because it was put on them by their opponents.
No, it's deep decline. And that MAY be good.
Normally, when the nation that's been "top dog" meets a strong challenger a war results. If the US declines swiftly enough, we may avoid that. Don't doubt that it will be unpleasant, but *less* unpleasant.
FWIW, I think China is a strong enough challenger that there's no way to avoid a competition for "top dog". But Trump has been systematically antagonizing our friends and proving us to be an unreliable trading partner. The is essentially surrendering our preeminent position before we're really challenged.
Actually, it would be pretty easy to implement. Just make people legally liable for other people following their advice, unless they have a (degree?) in the field. If you must, allow lawyers to file suit on behalf of parties injured by the advice, even without the consent of those parties.
I would call bullshit on "something that ~100% of the American public agree with (ending time changes)". The closer to Mexico they are the more likely people will agree with you, but those closer to Canada are ones that actually benefit from daylights saving and would disagree with you. Basically I call bullshit because you are effectively claim "~100% of the American public" live in the southern states.
Close to 100% want it to stop changing. Different states have different opinions about which way.
Just in case you don't understand the core issue, if you are close to the equator daylights saving is pointless and a hassle, but the closer to the poles you are the more extreme the number of daylight hours changes from summer to winter, 6 hours where I live. For people like me daylight savings makes the most of those hours by bringing the light hours closer in sync with when I need them.
Does it really, though? Where I am, it gets dark before I get home from work. Permanent DST seems like a big benefit from my POV, because those early morning hours are wasted indoors getting ready for work anyway, but evening hours can be used outdoors.
The right law to pass is one that gives the states the right to choose permanent DST, and then phases out the changes at the next time change.
Nope. We don't have POSIX timezones defined per-state at this time.
Pacific time will go away entirely in the U.S. All three states in that time zone adopted laws enacting permanent daylight saving time if Congress authorizes it.
And in general, if the time doesn't change, people can just choose the next zone to the right. No big deal.
Wesley: I see you have six fingers on your left hand. Someone was looking for you.
Count: It's an upscaler hallucination! I swear!
The point of daylight savings is that everybody's clock changes at once, so we can all follow the sun during business hours without changing the "hours" sign in the shop window. If we stop switching the clock, it doesn't matter for your sleep schedule WHAT hour of the day we (accurately or not) claim it is. You could adjust your schedule so that the sun rises, on average, at 00:00, if you wanted.
I mean ostensibly, yes, but the reality is that folks have expectations that businesses be open similar hours, and there's a decent amount of momentum involved that you'd have to fight if you changed it. Way easier for regions to pick the time that fits best with those expectations.
So if you're not changing, there's no advantage of daylight saving time over standard time, or frickin' Tulsa time or Hammer Time for that matter. However, standard time has the advantage that it's not wronger than it has to be on purpose.
Except in the large parts of the country where it at least arguably is, like the bottom half of California, all of middle and western Tennessee and Kentucky, everything to the right of Pennsylvania, etc.
Really? This fool picked THAT hill to die on? Really, there's nothing else the YOB has done bothers that supreme moron of the Senate.
Year of birth?
I find it hilarious that the one time a Republican stands up to the president, it is over something that ~100% of the American public agree with (ending time changes).
The right law to pass is one that gives the states the right to choose permanent DST, and then phases out the changes at the next time change. So at the next time change, if your area chooses permanent DST, you either stay on DST or switch to DST (depending on which time change), and if your area chooses permanent standard time, it either stays on standard time or switches to it, and then you never change again.
And if you pass that right after a time change, it gives the states a narrow window to make the decision, and then you're done with the time change forever.
This is common sense.
Yeah, that's fair. Passing it now would be s**t-for-brains stupid, because a bunch of states have passed laws that say that this will kick in as soon as Congress authorizes it, and if Congress authorizes it a week before the time change, it's going to be pandemonium for the tech industry.
The right time to vote on this is one week AFTER the time change that you're trying to avoid repeating a year from now.
Going to permanent daylight saving time because you hate changing the clocks is like being sick of all the picture frames in your house being askew and solving the problem by gluing them to the wall--at a fifteen-degree angle.
Not really, no. Part of the year, DST feels better, and part of the year, standard time feels better. You have to choose one, but there's no need for it to be standard time.
DST is currently active for roughly eight months out of the year. Standard time is active for roughly four. All things being equal, DST is better for your sleep schedule twice as often as standard time is. So I would argue that permanent standard time is like gluing them at 10 degrees because your house keeps tipping, and you get tired of shifting them to negative five degrees twice a year. It's downright backwards.
DST may not be ideal, but I'd argue standard time sure has h*** isn't.
LOL per capita Americans emit more CO2 from burning gas than Chines do from burning coal Also per capita Americans emit more CO2 from burning oil than Chines do from burning coal
And again, per capita numbers are uninteresting, because most people in China produce relatively little economic output, and the usage of people producing minimal economic output is uninteresting precisely because that is an indication of an underutilized resource, rather than an indication that this is as much energy as those people will need going forwards.
The eventual expected state of an industrial economy is one in which almost everyone produces significant economic output, because that's just how economies almost invariably develop over time. So in a couple of generations, assuming stable population, their energy usage will absolutely explode as their economy becomes more efficient and larger percentages of people end up doing jobs that produce higher levels of economic output.
That's why the only important metric when it comes to how a country is doing environmentally, IMO, other than perhaps the rate of population growth or decline, is emissions per unit of economic output. Because once you have that, you can compare how much countries produce with how much they pollute. You can also divide it by the percentage of people in that country who are actually producing meaningful economic output and get a good approximation of what that country's emissions will eventually be when everyone starts producing high economic output in a few decades. When you do this, you conclude that China will be a disaster environmentally if they don't stop ramping up coal production.
It really is that simple.
from your own words Rich Americans are entitled to pollute twice as much as Chinese, because they do it with oil & gas.
I literally did not say those words or anything like them.
If you mean "permanent standard time" would be preferable, I agree. But permanent DST is better than changing the clocks twice a year.
What they should do is define 6:00 AM to be whenever dawn happens.
The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.
