Because if they force you to use their app they can spy on you and make sure you look at their ads.

Having a single timezone avoids issues with things like broadcast times depending on where you are, or having to change your clocks as your train/flight progresses. If it says your high speed train will arrive at 2 PM, it will arrive at 2 PM, not 2 PM local time 4 PM destination time. You know exactly how long it will take to get there.

China isn't the only country that does it. Japan has a single timezone for the whole country, for example.

Most countries don't have DST either.

UTC or TAI?

I'm all for getting rid of leap seconds.

The Founding Fathers made a slave country where women, minorities and non-landowners couldn't vote. We already changed what the founding slaveowners made.

I hope you're willing to pay more for food and see food shortages which Trump has already caused after running on "but muh bidenflation" platform where he said food prices will go down (hint: they didn't).

If you look at a world time-zone map, you can get an idea of what the undistorted time zones look like (over the unpopulated oceans)
When they hit dirt, all bets are off.

In Central Time, for example, the centerpoint for the actual solar noon is quite far to the east of anything approaching its "center". Mountain time is even worse. Eastern is alright.

The point is- people obviously already didn't give a shit about "high noon".

There is a valid use of technical jargon: to communicate from one expert to another in clear words that leave no doubt.

Example:
When talking to a kid, a nurse should say: "You broke a bone in your left leg."

When talking to the surgeon that will fix it, that same nurse should say "Greenstick fracture of the left tibia"

The kid likely does not know what the words greenstick, fracture, or tibia means. Nor do they need to know. But the surgeon definitely needs to know all that information.

HOWEVER, there has developed another use of technical jargon:
To make the speaker sounds smart.
See, I know what a greenstick fracture is and I know the word tibia too! I must know what I am doing, you can trust me to do the surgery. (I am not a doctor, do not trust me to do any surgery, you will not like the results).

The problem is that smart people have long ago realized that inappropriate use of jargon means you are a lying con man, not a smart person.

For this reason, when I hear 'synergy' or any variation of it (with a few exceptions), I know the speaker is a moron trying to impress me. Many people think "CON MAN" rather than 'competent expert' when jargon is used, particularly the word synergy which was abused to ridiculous lengths by idiots with MBAs.

Note the main exception is in the middle of an explanation of why the synergy exists, as in: "If we buy a solar panel and a wind turbine, we can get just one backup battery. The synergy will save us about 5% of the total cost."

4 time zones won't be enough for that!

Nobody said it wasn't. You said, and I quote, "The US looked on..."
The US would have beat the Soviets to Berlin, with time to spare, if not for the agreement that the Soviets would take it.

Na. It was decided on Dec 7, 1941.

Stalingrad is undeniably where the Soviet Union survived the German invasion, and turned it around. But only because the Germans decided to waste the material there. Meanwhile, the Germans could have taken Moscow before Pearl Harbor, if Hitler hadn't been a moron. They sat less than 20 miles away.

The US sent the USSR over 11,000 planes, 6,000 tanks, 300,000 trucks, 350 locomotives, a half-million tons of rail, axles, and wheels, miles of telephone wire, thousands of telephones, and the machining to make their own shit.
We sent them 3 million tons of food.
Calling them unprepared is laughably ignorant. They had already lost the war.
The US could have ended the war without the USSR. The inverse is not remotely close to true.

Revisionist bullshit, lol.
The US allowed the Soviets to take Berlin, because it was 1) within their occupation zone, and 2) as Eisenhower stated at the time, not worth taking.
The US didn't have the chip on its shoulder that the USSR had (because we had not been so severely beaten and bloodied by the Germans), and as such it was no matter of pride to take the city.

Agreed.

Negative. I found your proclivity for being unable to accept that you were wrong obnoxious from the start.

Incorrect.
I will say, you did help me become less ignorant on one or two things over time, but mostly in the process of finding out how you were wrong.

Doubtful. Confidence is quiet. You're not.
The better explanation for you is that your education is dated, if existing at all, and you know it.

This is some kind of bizarre fantasy you have. It may explain your emotional reactions to anyone challenging you.

Calling out a charlatan for what they are is not a troll, no matter how many times you say it.
I aspire for nothing "outside of my reach."
I am a successful software and network engineer, about 2 decades out from retiring with more money than I will ever know what to do with.
I have my name on multiple CVEs and linux kernel commits, and I make enough money to do what I want without worrying about how much I have.

How do we define obsession? The evidence just doesn't support that assertion.
It's obvious that I've become tired of your constant claims of authority without backing them up, and have decided to demonstrate that the authority is, in fact, lacking.
You attempt to silence argument by way of, "I'm educated and you're not.", but it was quite easy to demonstrate that your claimed authority, if real at all, is not applicable. Because you are just wrong.

I'll admit there was hyperbole in the statement. Not every thing you have said was wrong- but on the balance, more than half. This is easily demonstrable.
You seem to be trying to distract from me demonstrating your ignorance by pointing out a time at which I myself was ignorant. But here's the thing- I didn't try to shut down anyone who argued with me your mix of fallacioius argumentum ad verecundiam, and argumentum ad hominem.

I know many.
I have never met one who argued for years from an incorrect foundation without once bothering to actually educate themselves, which I have demonstrated that you have done.
Let us imagine a paper you have written, on the topic of LLMs, discussing all the problems with them being RNNs, and you being too fucking stupid to learn that they're not. Because at this point, your level of hubris can only be called a form of stupidity.

This is a standard part of your claims.
Accusing people of being uneducated, and crying.
It's weird. Your deep-seated insecurity is palpable.

I think I will, since you selectively did not respond to that one.
Here you go, again.
The survey gives 7.7% of the population as Zoroastrian.
The Zoroastrians themselves say it is well below 1%.
Sample bias is critical to a study having any meaning.
You cannot get an unbiased sample via social media. There is no magic you can do to make that representative of the population as a whole.
The number of confounding correction factors required to eliminate the sample bias would be as large as the sample.

The whole point is that I don't want to have to rely on a website to plan a trip. That's exactly what I'm talking about.

You are confused by what "read between the lines" means, I see.

That's incorrect, and I demonstrated your lack of understanding of the math elsewhere. Would you like me to link to it?
You can do some basic validation of the survey using the Zoroastrian numbers.
Yet the survery over-estimates their actual size by fucking 800%.

Your narrative here is bullshit, and wildly insulting to actual Iranians.

Forgive the typos. Typing with a cat on your left arm is difficult.