For some offices, tech like Teams/Outlook would certainly help, sure. But the majority of offices aren’t using that. But even still, people would do it regardless. Say you’re going on vacation and want to know when daylight hours are, you’d still be doing the same thing. Timezones may be annoying, but they ultimately make sense. We have a universal time for the planet powering the system, there’s really no reason to change it, in my opinion.

But… We have UTC already, so calculating the difference is a non-issue. If you got rid of timezones, you’d still end up creating it in all but name since the vast majority of business will be occurring during daytime hours around the world. For example, an office in Tokyo sending emails to their NYC office at 0800 UTC (currently 0400 EDT in NYC) wouldn’t end up getting answered for at least 3-4 hours when those employees started logging in. In other words, people would still be doing calculations in their heads to know when business hours are in that region, essentially recreating timezones.

As for your second paragraph, I agree, and I did have it backwards, thanks for the correction. In the summertime where I live, the sun has risen by roughly 0530 and sets around 2100. In the wintertime, the sun is rising around 0700-0730 and setting around 1630-1700 at its shortest daylight hours. Like you said, staying at standard would mean in the summertime we’d have brighter mornings, but curtains and shutters exist for a reason. Personally, I think having it still be bright out at 2030 is kind of annoying.

Yeah, timezones are absolutely helpful from a logistics and coordination standpoint. Daylight savings time, though… That nonsense needs to be eliminated. So what if it will be dark well into morning wake hours in the winter, I’d take it over dealing with the time change twice a year.

I feel like this could be a lame drinking game when bored: Is it AI generated or just bad/lazy writers?

Isn’t windows 11 doing that now? I only use it at work and I think only Home Editions are affected.

You’d be surprised. Just Google it, there are tons of pop magazines and websites that discuss it and how it was trending on TikTok for awhile after the movie came out. And just to add, most fads begin with celebrities/influencers starting them across the various age demographics.

It’s partly because of Top Gun and some other recent pop culture occurrence I can’t recall off the top of my head. But yeah, I know several people at work who recently started doing it as well, and one of them mentioned that as their inspiration. I’m guessing a few started bc of that and more followed suit, because why not or something.

deleted by creator

A fairly aggressive comment. I’m not the person you replied to, but as a parent with young ones, there are times where TV is literally an enormous rescuer. For example, just a couple of months ago, the entire family got hit with an extremely nasty stomach bug. I could barely walk without needing to either throw up or shit my pants. Being able to setup a little triage center in our living room for us and the kids, where we napped and watched movies all day, made that experience at least mostly bearable.

There are numerous other cases where modern technology makes parenting far easier. Back in the day, communities were much closer knit and extended family lived within the neighborhood, so parents had a lot more backup to help in those situations. Nowadays, that kind of support network is increasingly rare for parents to have. So yes, it’s a luxury, but it should be an accessible luxury. Private companies are free to do what they want, doesn’t mean we can’t complain about it while begrudgingly continuing to pay for it.

Lol, too true. It’s either that or honeytraps

You are correct.

I don’t disagree. My comment was saying a healthier balance is what I would prefer when my kids are a bit older. That article fails to be well-rounded and only focuses on proving their hypothesis versus presenting data in an objective manner. For example:

The answer lies in expectations. Parents today receive constant messaging that in order to be “good parents”, they must always keep their children safe. And it is widely believed that the world is no longer a safe place for children to play in. Yet statistics show that it has never been a safer time to be a child. Injury-related deaths are at an all-time low in most Western nations. In the US, deaths from unintentional injuries fell by 73% for boys and 85% for girls between 1973 and 2010. This misperception of risk creates the parental paradox.

Yet just a bit earlier in the article, she mentions this:

Every successive generation of children since the 1970s has seen their outdoor play and freedom shrink. Time use data show that children’s leisure time has gone down, particularly time spent in unstructured outdoor play, while time spent in academic and screen-based activities has increased. Between 1975 and 2015, outdoor play among UK children decreased by 29.4%, while screen-based activities increased by 22.4%. In the U.S., only 16% of children in 1997 played outdoors every day. By 2003—just six years later—that dropped even further to 10%.

So how can they rule out that it’s safer now because the amount of kids engaging in unsupervised, dangerous/risky activities is the lowest it’s ever been? (As a side note: In the US, I think she also ignores the very real financial problems with serious injuries. A medical bill for a broken bone or other serious injury can cost some families tens of thousands of dollars without insurance. Back in the 60s/70s and earlier, medical bills were way, way more affordable than now.)

There are other problems, as well. She seems to only focus on “intensive parenting” and showing that structured activities are a negative thing. Whereas articles like this, https://parenthetical.wisc.edu/2017/01/23/acing-afterschool-making-extracurricular-activities-work-for-your-teen/ , argue that structured activities can be beneficial, too. Later near the end she does discuss simply prioritizing it versus going all in, but the way it’s presented throughout the rest of the article makes it seem like structured activities are entirely a negative thing and unsupervised, unstructured activities is the best way for kids to thrive.

Anyway, I’m an advocate for simply striking a healthy balance between the two: Don’t overburden your kids with supervised, structured activities, and don’t let them become feral by completely going hands-off with their free time. In other words, gently guide, mentor, and support them. :)

Haha, same here, but ours were packed dirt trails with dirt and wood ramps in the woods (our neighborhood had a large forested area nearby). Fun stuff, and definitely some very fond memories.

But, I was definitely one of the kids that broke their leg (my femur) and had to get 4 steel pins that stuck out of my skin to set the bone while it healed for about 3 months before getting a regular cast for the rest of the healing. It was pure agony, the entire healing and physical rehab recovery process took almost a year (my school even sent an in-home tutor to my house for a couple of hours a day since I had to stay at home for several months). I’d never want anyone to go through that, particularly my kids.

That being said, I do think it’s important for kids to have a degree of privacy and autonomy, I just don’t think I’d be kosher with the amount of unsupervised freedom that I had as a kid (my kids are still <5, so I have some time before they’re semi-free range animals).

Tbf, as a parent now, I wouldn’t let my kids go unsupervised that long without some periodic check-ins throughout the day. I mean, I definitely remember much of my childhood being like this, but in retrospect it also led to us doing lots of stupid/dangerous shit that did result in a few ER visits over the years (e.g. broken arms, legs, concussions, stitches, etc).

Audiophiles are 100% targeted with tons of nonsense products, mainly because sound is such a subjective thing beyond a certain level. That’s not to say all hifi products are placebo-driven, just that the industry is rife with them.

What always hurts my brain is what existed before the big bang, and what about before even that and so on.

That would only rule out the creator being within the universe when the big bang occurred, right?

I’ll use this analogy: Do you hate seatbelt reminders in cars? It’s the same concept. You’re putting a lot of trust in people that just isn’t going to work out well in the long run, as was seen with countless people continuing to ignore seatbelt safety for generations until it was forcefed into the culture. I view cybersecurity reminders the same way, where lots of people ignore it until it’s forcefed into the collective to be taken seriously.

Those who hate it because they already take it seriously, will just figure out how to quiet the alarms/notices and/or move on. Again, I get that you’re essentially saying, “but it’s the principle of the matter!” I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal, as I’d rather be comforted knowing that my friends and family who send me videos/pictures/random crap are doing so from a device that isn’t as likely to be completely compromised.

I mean, that’s not the worst suggestion? Drilling a hole and adding a screw could work. Now, whether that screw will start rusting and shedding rust shavings/dust into your food after a few washes is a different matter.

Honestly though, OP, it’s best to just replace. If it’s got sentimental value for whatever reason, you could try crimping the end of the tube or do go the drilling route and use a non-metallic holding mechanism (e.g. plastic screws or even a small circular plastic rod with an end that flares out after exiting the other side so it stays in place).

I mostly agree with all of your points, but I think you’re failing to see the forest for the trees. The vast majority of users are ignorant as fuck about their tech. They couldn’t give a shit about anything other than their own convenience. If the devs allowed everyone to opt out if it meant no longer getting annoying messages, a huge majority of them would do exactly that, caring little for what that actually means in the long-term for their own security and others’ (yes, a vulnerable device is a danger to others, it isn’t always only impacting just that user).

So they opt for this collective, utilitarian approach, despite it meaning less user control. If you don’t like it, get an android device and root it. Again, I don’t disagree with your points, I just thought it worth pointing out the larger picture.