The Canadian province of Saskatchewan is geographically in the Mountain Time Zone (UTC07:00). However, most of the province observes UTC06:00 year-round. As a result, it is effectively on daylight saving time (DST) year-round, as clocks are not turned back an hour in autumn when most jurisdictions return to standard time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

They've been doing this for sixty years now and it seems to work fine for them. Certainly I would prefer the sun being highest at noon, but as long as it doesn't change twice per year - any system that keeps midnight and the change of date sometime when most people are asleep works for me. If some task works best in the daylight, then schedule it for whatever clock reading makes it best in the daylight.

Those were my thoughts, but then I thought "How are they measuring 'brightness'?" I could certainly believe that if the pre-industrial night sky was measured at x lux, that we could be at tens or even hundreds of that now. The full moon provides about 500 times the light of all the stars, so adding just 1/100 of the light of the moon to an otherwise moonless night increases the light by a factor of five.

True, a single clock for the whole planet would have some big drawbacks, mostly because it is very convenient to have the date change while most people are sleeping rather than while most people are awake, but we could probably work quite well with less than a half dozen time zones to set our clocks to. One for the Americas, one for Europe and Africa, and one for East Asia, and one for West Asia would probably do it. With five or six sun-hours between the East and West of these new time zones, midnight can be kept well within most people's sleep time, and locals could decide what clock-time is best for whatever activities are taking place. In the middle of the zone people might tend to have their lunches around 12:00, while in the East they eat at 09:00 and in the West they eat at 15:00h.

I suppose a downside is that national Television schedules would not be able to be printed for the whole country. "The 5 O'Clock News" would need to change their branding. Canada has done this to a minor extent since forever, as Newfoundland and Labrador being half an hour off has makes it common to hear "Watch the new episode of Hip New Show! 9pm on Mondays, 9:30 in Newfoundland."

I wouldn't say it has NO advantages - yes, in both cases when you plan a meeting you need to make sure everyone is available (which is also true if you live in the same house with everyone!), but if everyone is in the same time zone, you only need to check to see if everyone is available at the proposed time which can be done by asking them "Are you free at 11?"

This is MUCH easier than: "Are you free at 11?" - "Your time or my time?" - "My time." - "What time is that for me?" - "What time zone are you in?" - "I'm in Paris" - "How much different is Paris from New York?" - "Six hours" - "Which way?" - "Paris is later than New York" - "Are you free?" - "Yes, I am free" - "Oh crap, what date is this for?" - "Why?" - "Because Summer Time ends in Paris before DST ends in New York, so in late October there is only a five hour difference." - "What date exactly?" - "October 25, 2026 is when Paris goes off Summer Time, and November 1 is when New York changes." - "So is everyone free at 11, New York time on October 26?" - "I have no idea, I can't even remember which of us is in New York and who is in Paris".

But would we make all those changes though? In every town? Twice per year? I doubt it very much - the reasons for making each of those changes is relatively weak, and the reasons for making them twice per year even weaker. If it makes sense in the winter to run school hours from 8:15 to 2:45, then do that ALL YEAR, and if it makes MORE sense to do it from 10:30 to 5:00 then do that, again all year. School start times in one of the local school boards already range from 8:15 to 9:30 in different schools - this is at 44.3N so significant sun shifting happens - clearly there is AT least 75 minutes of flexibility in the system already. The yearly time changes are NOT needed for these schools as demonstrated by the fact that there are students already starting one hour earlier or one hour later than other students, at all times of the year. Yeah, the people in Anchorage have less daylight to play with, but shifting the clock twice per year doesn't change that.

Pick a time, any time, and stick with it. Adjust your start and stop time for events as appropriate to your local conditions. There are already SIGNIFICANT number of people who live in places that do not change their clocks twice per year - most of Saskatchewan for example is effectively on Mountain Daylight Time all year long even through geographically it is closest to the Mountain Standard Time zone. Those people seem to have made it work, since 1966.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Anyone south of Saskatchewan needs to be able to point to significant existing problems in SK to justify changing their clocks twice per year.

All of China does use one time zone, so that kind of thing is certainly possible. GMT has a lot going for it, but it feels kind of inconvenient for the date to change during daylight hours. GMT for Europe and Africa seems like it could work, maybe Alaska time for North America, giving midnight at 11 pm local for Hawaii, with the date changing happening in the wee hours for the rest of the continent.

Stop changing the clocks twice per year, but if there are reasons to set opening or closing times earlier or later, I am all for it. Sunlight at whatever-oclock isn't bright enough? Then start school at whatever-thirty or other appropriate time.

The study could have been framed "it would be best to wake up later in the day" rather than "we should make the clocks read different numbers so that waking up at this particular number is better for us".

The problem is not that specific number correspond to particular positions of the sun, but rather than problem is that particular activities are tied to particular numbers on the clock. Framed this way, the solution is obvious, change the activities so they occur at other numbers on the clock.

This, so much this.

While I personally would prefer "Standard Time" all the time, anything that removes twice-yearly clock changes would be an improvement. Local schools and businesses can then just set whatever opening and closing times best match the local situation - heck they could even change those individual hours throughout the year if they wanted. Making EVERYONE change EVERYTHING twice a year is just stupid.

instead of trying to make everything a web app

My kids have been in the Google ecosystem at school for several years, from elementary school into high school. Leaving aside the Google is Evil issue for now, there's no denying it's a good experience.

Whether they're on their Chromebook, their phone, their tablet, or a computer at the library or Grandpa's all their stuff is just "there." Their data, their apps, their "Google Classroom." Everything. The notion that their apps + "stuff" doesn't follow them everywhere is foreign to them.

My son has a gaming laptop, but really the only installed applications are his games.

Just because the film attracts a big audience doesn't mean it's any good.

Except in this case, the movie is good.

That's part of the reason word-of-mouth is giving this movie traction. I told my friends how much I enjoyed it, they went, enjoyed it as well, told their friends... etc.

Word-of-mouth doesn't work if a movie is bad.

I guess if I was into Kung-Fu that might be a thing?

Chinese movies are a lot more than Kung-Fu these days -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Still pretty hokey, but no hokier than Hollywood CGI robot monster movies from 15 years ago.

uhh... what?

He's spot-on.

Whenever there is a natural disaster like wildfires in California huge numbers of evangelical leaders will say things like "God is punishing California for all its homosexuals" or if a hurricane stomps on New Orleans they blame the city's "debauchery" for God smiting them.

I WOULD expect much better control over depth-of-field in brighter lighting though

The advantage for me with a smaller aperture would be the ability to use a slower shutter speed. A few weeks ago I wanted to take a picture on a sunny day of waves splashing ashore. I wanted to blur them with a slower shutter speed, but I couldn't because the camera in the phone didn't have the option for a smaller iris to compensate for the slower shutter speed.

Can even be charged on a standard plug.

I've had my EV seven years. I've only ever charged it on a "standard plug."

It typically adds ~80km overnight, which is more than enough based on our driving profile.

Additionally, there were not many used EVs on the market to begin with

The other consideration is people aren't switching up their EVs. The first-generation EVs definitely had problems (Nissan Leaf, Kia Soul etc.) but the second generation cars are well designed.

My 2nd-gen EV just hit the 7-year mark. It is still running as well as when I drove off the lot, with next-to-no battery degradation. So I have ne need or desire to trade it in.