>"With permanent Daylight Saving Time, the latest sunrise in Atlanta would be 8:45am vs 7:45am without. If you are trying to get to work/school by 8am, you are up in the pre-dawn hours either way."

Exactly my point I was making. A large majority of people will be in the dark on waking, leaving, driving, and probably even arriving to work/school, anyway. So it isn't going to totally "solve" the issue for most people. Although it is true there will be more times there is light when waking on the thresholds of the changes. Yet they completely gloss over the sleep disturbances that occur for many people when trying to adjust their schedule due to the time changing.

There is no perfect solution. Only tradeoffs, and it will vary by latitude. Hence, let States have all three options and they can decide what works best for them.

Exactly. And Vmware's calculus is that as long as it has a dozen gigantic clients (governments, huge enterprises) that it can charge whatever it wants, then the small fish aren't worth it.

Why would you care?

And how does DST help anyway? My kids schools all started at different times. I'm pretty sure they re-used the same busses. The bus would pick up the first group of kids and take them to high school, then come back and pick up the junior high kids, then come back and pick up the middle school kids, then come back and pick up the elementary school school kids. DST was of no use whatsoever in knowing what time any given bus was going to pick up my kid or what time any given school started or ended classes.

And now that my kid has graduated, I don't have any reason to care about what time any school in my district is open, let alone anywhere else in the world. I can't figure out why you care about what time some random school in some random part of the world is open. The vast majority of people in the world at any given time do not have school age children.

I looked into this earlier this year. 100% of those surveyed want the annual time changes to stop, so the time is the same year-round.

However there is almost an exact 50 / 50 split of which way should be the permanent way. So 50% of folks will be unhappy whichever one is chosen.

>"Well, yeah, of course; but the question is why did Congress make it that way? It just seems like a rather odd place to draw the line."

Never made any sense to me.

>"States are allowed to choose between implementing twice-yearly DST switches or sticking with year-round standard time... but they can't choose permanent DST?"

Because Congress made it that way. They can just as easily make it so States can choose all three options instead of just two. We can see how unpopular permanent Standard Time is, since only two States use that option. I suspect more than several would choose permanent Savings Time if given the ability.

HubSpot appears to be one of the worst Email spam entites in the world. I block them completely. I wish they would cut 100% of their jobs and just go away. Constant Contact can follow along with them. Grrrrrr

>"The health evidence points to standard time, largely because morning light matters for our body clocks, sleep, and mood."

That entirely depends on where you are and when you wake. For many people, being forced to adjust to a time change twice a year can really screw with sleep a lot more. Some people take weeks or longer to adjust.

>""Our biological clocks need morning light to stay synchronized with the 24-hour day," said Simon Fraser"

And in the winter, where I am, it is still dark in the winter when I wake most of the time, so it never really solves that "issue", if it even is one. The difference is that with permanent Daylight Saving Time, it would not be dark when I return home, so I was have at least some daylight I could actual use after work. And if necessary, I could set a timer with bright full-spectrum lights each morning before waking in the winter.

Again, it depends primarily on your location and latitude and when you must awaken. Which is why the best idea is to allow States (or in this case Provinces) choose what they want to do for themselves:

1) Stay on Standard Time permanently
2) Stay on Saving Time permanently
3) Change time twice a year.

What is right for Maine isn't necessarily the same as for Virginia or Florida. They have very different latitudes. They can experiment and see what is best for THEM, rather than forcing the entire country into a single mode.

But if we can only have a single change/standard, I would vote for either permanent time option, rather than the insanity of switching time twice a year.

Yes, and this statement:

Which I assume was meant to be reassuring, is the exact opposite. It tells me that it is very probable that whatever was actually in the test tube is something they don't even have the ability to test for or identify.

We have bubonic plague infections every year in the United States. Very, very few, admittedly, but it's not like it's been eradicated. So there's still benefit in studying it.

The more I hear about this so-called "SF Democratic Party," the more I'm convinced they don't speak for the majority of SF voters. Seriously. They seem to be some strange, centrist organization that no voters belong to and nobody knows where they get their money from.

I'm still impressed that the Teams web client can't edit a message with an emoji in it without messing up the keyboard controls and often corrupting the message and losing data. It's had this bug for years. It's literally a messaging app where you can't reliably send messages.

>"A browser that does not support ad blocking is a non-starter. You simply can't use today's Internet without ad blocking in place."

I agree. It is why you should use Firefox + UBO, or one of its forks (LibreWolf, WaterFox, whatever). But that is why I said the use case is for things like a wiki, documentation, appliances, or for testing. The same type of things one might do with Dillo.

According to the site it has no support for:

* Tabs
* Multiple windows
* Modern video
* WebGL
* WebGPU
* Extensions/Plugins

It reminds me of a more modern Dillo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... except with Javascript and more CSS. It could be useful for appliances that just need an HTML viewer, access to a Wiki, documentation viewer, or for testing.

It is a small subset of https://nordstjernen.org/ which is much more capable (but much larger/more complex).

This doesn't make sense on the surface for a number of reasons. The Starship second phase cannot launch most of the things that Falcon 9 launches. I'm assuming they are going to have two large shuttle-like doors on a Starship eventually that can release larger payloads?

The next thing that doesn't make sense is simply payload size. Certainly it is not more economical to use the Starship stack to put something into orbit that is only a small fraction of its cargo capacity? And yes, I know it could carry multiple satellites / spacecraft at once, but it is very rare those things all need to be in the exact same orbit at the same time. So it seems Falcon 9 would be more economical for launching a single smaller thing?

Maybe the economics of the Falcon 9 second stage not being usable totally makes the case for Starship? It's estimated a second stage costs between $7 and $10 million. So perhaps right there economically it makes more sense to fly a 100% reusable Starship even for a small payload. I guess the liquid methane Starship burns is a relatively cheap, being derived from natural gas that the USA already has in abundant supply.