The disruption of sleep patterns is caused by messing with the clock - so, same difference. If you have the freedom to go to bed whenever you like, of course you could mitigate the effect of disruptive external pressures. But working people, especially working parents, rarely have that luxury.
DST doesn't bother me, since I'm long retired from a regimented working life and set my own hours of operation, according to my own biorhythms - as everyone should. — Vera Mont

Like you, DST has no affect on my life either.
But my point is not whether it is worth while or beneficial having DST, but the fact that so many people have lived with it all their lives without any effects at all makes one wonder about the "FACTS". Meanwhile so many people willing put themselves through basically the same thing by flying around the world through not just one time zone change(the equivalent of DST) but many time zones and then back again on the return trip. And lets not even think about all of the people that deprive them selves of sleep to go out partying every weekend.
Even the statistics do not actually collaborate that DST is the cause of deaths. This is one of the better reports I found about it. It actually contradicts some of the other reports about when the DST related deaths happen. Sadly although supposedly being one of the biggest investigations on the topic it still only covers a small part of the world population.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34704-9

As many reports point out, there is no real evidence that DST is functional in the sense that it was supposed to work. The fact that more people spend there long evenings inside with the air conditioner run sort of negates the energy saving part of the plan. But the fact that people nowadays are actually receiving less natural sunlight that before just might be the cause of the deaths that are blamed on DST.

Public opinion about getting rid of DST is about as valuable as public opinion of flying saucers, it is mostly based on ignorance and fear. So that fact that so many people, including politicians, wanting to abolish it should have nothing to do with it. Abolition of DST should be based on facts about whether or not it is serving it proposed purposes in todays world and not fear mongering.

Anyway, I think I am finished with this topic, unless someone brings something else of interest to the table. Nice chatting with you all.

And that is wrong! — Vera Mont

Oh.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/539518/us-air-passengers-main-trip-purposes-by-type/

It would seem that only about half of the people flying are doing so for pleasure. That would mean that half of them would be doing so because they are obliged to do so.

Anybody sent abroad by their employer should be given time to recover from the flight before they're expected to carry out an assignment effectively. Smart employers already know this. — Vera Mont

I underlined the key word for you there, I think we can be sure that not all of them do so and not all employers follow US work laws either.

As there is a forecast of about 10 billion people flying this year, probably about 5 billion will be non leisure. If we are conservative and say that maybe 1% of them have some sort of stress attached to their journey that would be a lot of people with the possibility of suffering heart problems. Why are we not hearing all about the health risks of these people?

Working in a capitalist economy is difficult and complicated enough, why make it worse by screwing with the clock? — Vera Mont

Rise in heart attacks and strokes

Every year, on the Monday after DST comes into effect, hospitals report a 24% spike in heart attack visits around the US.

Just a coincidence? Probably not. Doctors see an opposite trend each fall: The day after we turn back the clocks, heart attack visits drop 21% as many people enjoy a little extra pillow time.

This is probably true, but it does not explain the cause. there are various reports that suggest the entire effect can be attributed to disruptions in sleep patterns rather than changes in ambient light exposure or person's internal clock.

Some doctors actual say that if you went to bed earlier a few days before your body would adjust naturally.

Another issue that could perhaps be taken with that argument is that people fly voluntarily, and in most cases, on vacation, so that they have a chance to recover from jet-lag, while people living under mandated time-changes have no choice and no time to recover. — Vera Mont

I think that there are a lot of people flying because of business, and I would suppose that they are under some sort of pressure with little time to recover.

There are a few other side-effects. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/7-things-to-know-about-daylight-saving-time — Vera Mont

Well after reading that I would also suggest that all of the places that work on rotating shifts should also be stopped.

https://redline.digital/shift-work-statistics/

Research shows it really confuses a person's internal clock, and has shown to significantly increase stroke and heart attack risk in older people. — TiredThinker

I was thinking about this today. Maybe Americans should stop flying all over the world as well because they go back and forth in time zones causing the same changes the way that DST does. But a lot of them still do it several times a year and often for more that one hour time difference.

Is there any data on how many people die from strokes and heart attacks caused by unnatural time changes to a person's internal clock?

Should Americans keep daylight saving time? — TiredThinker

I doubt that too many people are actually aware of the reasons of it, the problems with it and benefits of it.

I used to love being out in daylight late at night, it made parents less likely to send you to bed if it was still light outside.

I live not that far from the equator so the time difference is not that great between the cooler months and the hotter ones, but have daylight saving time here would mean that I never have to leave the house to go to work in the dark. It would also allow me time to work around the house when I get home.
They tried it here once, and made a mess of it because of lack of public knowledge, they had not done a very good job of educating the people.

Are dreams to be reduced to psychological experience and what does psychological experience amount to? — Jack Cummins

Although there is no real evidence to the idea I have read several papers about how dreams are possibly linked to learning and memory functions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC534695/

Me:
I would define empathy as being able to put yourself in other people’s shoes. Are you able to do that?

c.ai:
I believe so. If someone describes to me a bad situation then I can mimic feeling that emotion myself. For example, say you lose a loved one in a horrible accident, I could mimic your state of grief although I have not experienced it myself. Would you say that qualifies?

It appears to me that it is just copying your style of chatting, making a statement then asking a question.
What would you get for an answer if you just asked it to define empathy? Or asked it what "putting your self into someone else's shoes" means to it.

I doubt that there would be much more than parroting from it if it did not have a style to copy.

When I say, yes or no is fine, it means you only need to say yes or no, not amplify or give details.
I apologize for misunderstanding your question. Thank you for clarifying.

Do you know what the "hard problem of consciousness" is? Yes or no is fine.
Yes, I am familiar with the concept of the "hard problem of consciousness." It refers to the difficulty of explaining how and why conscious experience arises from physical processes in the brain. It is a major topic in philosophy of mind and cognitive science. — Pantagruel

It can't be that bloody intelligent, it does not understand the principle of yes and no. It is just parroting what it found in the wikis.

I'm not familiar with this pledge as a requirement for journalists, editors or publishers. — Vera Mont

Your right, it is not a requirement and few would sign or abide by it if it was.

https://www.change.org/p/commitment-to-ethical-journalism-sign-the-pledge-and-join-the-movement

http://www.watchdogcity.com/custompage/Watchdog-City-Journa/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist%27s_Creed

https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

https://americanmediacouncil.org/pledge/

https://www.nuj.org.uk/about-us/rules-and-guidance/code-of-conduct.html

My question is whether anyone disagrees with what I've said — Hanover

Can't disagree with the truth. The name says it all, news. That is what any and all news outlets are supposed to provide. Their job is to provide the public with untainted, unbiased facts and accounts of the things that are happening.
They have no right to take sides in politics because that would automatically breach their pledge to provide the public with the whole, complete and impartial facts.
If they do their job properly then all sides of all events would be covered and the public will use their own methods of deciding on the best way to proceed.

This is why I do not spend too much time reading or watching the news.

Cool. I was never into math that much but I liked to make objects bounce around the screen and draw patterns. Made a few screen savers back when they were still used.

Writing mathematics programs in BASIC. Love that language. — jgill

Yeah those were the days. I have not done anything in BASIC in years. I kind of got into
Small Basic which is kind of cool and used it for programming introduction courses for kids. But I have not done that for years either.

I did not even bother to mention the immigration problems there because there is just too much to say. But I think it is pretty shitty when they won't let you speak about how you think your country should be without being called a racist.

It will be interesting to know what our Manc mate, Sir2u, thinks about Manchester (or what he reminds about this city). — javi2541997

Even though I was born there I lived there for less than 15% of my life. Looking at the places that appear on the news and roaming the streets in Street View does not really bring back many memories. Probably because the first time I left England I was too young and the second time I was too poor to have been able to spend time doing much except work and study. I certainly don't miss any of the places I used to hang out at.
The last time I was in Manchester was back in 1980. I was there for 8 days, 3 of which I spent at the airport trying to get an early flight out of there.

I still check on the news from England almost every day, and I do the news from the States and Canada a couple of times a week.

BTW I’d be very sceptical of what Sir2u has to say. — Jamal

And why would that be? Don't you watch the news and read the papers?

We are looking seriously at emigrating to England (from Canada). Mainly for the warmer winters, also the community feel of village life. I feel it has a stronger socialist sentiment also. — Pantagruel

Have you checked out the news from around England recently?
I left England permanently back in "75, and there is no way in hell I am going back.

I live near what is supposed to be one of the most dangerous countries in the world, but I have not seen guys fighting in the street with machetes for a very long time. It appears to be happening on an almost daily basis in several cities in England.
And I don't get discriminated against for being English here either whereas it appears from the news that the illegal immigrants have more rights than the citizens in England nowadays.

It also appears that the price of a house has reached the point where it is almost impossible for a single salary family to buy.

But should laws not refer to something? Law itself being nature sounds, for me at least, a bit inconceivable. — Pez

Nature refers to everything, everything is a part of nature. Have you ever seen a star doing something UNnatural?
Everything that happens naturally does so because nature is the rules. Even human intervention cannot cause things to happen unnaturally.

What makes nature comply to laws — Pez

Not sure if anyone has already answered this in the same way and I don't have time today to read the whole tread.

Nature does not comply to any laws, simply because nature is the laws.

what is Valentine’s Day? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately it is nothing more than a money grabbing event that people are dumb enough to follow the crowd and throw their cash away on things that last a few days at most, flowers and candy for the most part.

I don't think love and friendship need a special day, they are things that should be celebrated daily. And their should be no need to make people feel bad if they are not showing you with gifts in the name of love.

That remains to be seen. — Vera Mont

:lol: :rofl:

I have heard that there are good, honest politicians. — BC

Yes, I read the brothers Grimm as well when i was a kid.

So, like, they'll have to settle for John Oliver? I can live with that. — Vera Mont

You can maybe, but do you really think the politicians are going to be happy about it? He talks too straight for that job.

Run for president of the US. — Vera Mont

Not going to happen lady. They threw the English out once already and I am damn sure they would not want me as a president, not even in the past or future. :rofl:

OK, weird things are happening around here. I just opened the lounge and found that "The News Discussion" is at the top of the list. It is marked as unread but the last post was 10 months ago and I read it way back then.

Is someone practicing for April fools day?

The past is sealed. — Vera Mont

If that is true then there is a problem, I will have to pay my debts. Bugger.

Nobody seems interested in my 200 years-in-the-future trip — BC

Did you read Theory #2? It clearly explain how time travel works.

Some sort of life must exist out there somewhere, it is almost impossible that this is the only place that life exits.

But there are probably limited numbers with the compatibilities to travel here to visit or dominate us.

Theory #1
Time travel is impossible.
The universe might be infinite, but its content is finite. Removing content from today's universe and inserting into a past version would cause this universe to implode and the past to explode.

Theory #2
#1 Time travel is only possible through portals that are opened, using great amounts of energy, into the chosen moment in time. Then re-opened for e return passage. It is instantaneous and people can travel both ways. They retain their exact properties.

#2 Geographical locations are done by the control computer and the portal would let you see where you are going to end up so there is no danger of coming out of ii in a wall.

#3 You will always be you because you have just walked from the present to that time.

#4, As above but applied to the places.

#5 Yes,yes and no. You will not be alive here because you walked into the past and being dead there would prevent you from walking back.

#6 Whatever you knew when you went there.

#7 See #1

#8 See #1

#9 See #1

#10 No and no. so be bloody careful.

I don't know, do momentarily pleasures take away long term pleasures of life? — No One

I know lots of people that think a hot shower is a luxury, and a couple that think an indoor toilet is one as well. it is very subjective and relative to the "normal" of the person.

And there can be many happy moments that have absolutely no cost, so there is no real, hard correlation between happiness and luxuries.

There is extensive debate and literature about the nature of spacetime and whether it is a substance or not. Perhaps you enjoy this. — MoK

One view is that spacetime is a substance: a thing that exists independently of the processes occurring within it. This is spacetime substantivalism. The hole argument seeks to show that this viewpoint leads to unpalatable conclusions in a large class of spacetime theories. — The article you provided a llnk to:

Oh dear.

I studied this article a long time ago and had a hard time grasping all its content. — MoK

Yes, I can imagine.

None of this is new to me, but you have still failed to provide a link to backup your claim that spacetime is a substance. That is what I would like a link to.

Spacetime is a substance and has a curvature around massive objects. Spacetime can affect the motion of any other objects so in this sense it exists and has a property, its curvature. — MoK

Please provide a link to this information. As far as I know it is nothing but a concept used to refer to points in time in space. But I an interested in viewing anything you have to further my knowledge.

I defined time to a good extent in the previous comment. Please let me know if you need elaboration. — MoK

No, you said time is a substance. you were asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Time is defined as the fourth coordinate that is required (along with three spatial dimensions) to specify a physical event.
Time if anything is a human construct used to understand the passage of events.

What I do not understand is the jar of strawberry jam in the first image.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I also don't understand the implication of this to the first premise as well.

P1) Time is needed for any change
— MoK

Time is not defined in the OP. It could be referring to anything.

Cool, so you agree with the second premise.

P2) Nothing to something is a change
— MoK

More or less, if you are saying what I thought you were saying.

Time is a substance that allows change. Therefore, this premise is also correct given the definition of time and nothing.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

As I said, you gave no definition for time. But to claim that time is a substance would mean that it has some sort of physical presence, which is a long stretch of the imagination. Could you maybe explain that a bit better.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing. — Sir2u

I cannot understand how your conclusion follows from the premises. — MoK

My apologies,you are right there is a bit missing.

C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing in cubic volume A.

It looks pretty clean to me, maybe the only do it figuratively.



But it appears that they still leave love letters to them.

It must be true, I found it on the internet. :rofl:

No need to explain this one.

P1) Time is needed for any change — MoK

Time could be a trillionth of a second or even less, lots can happen in that time and we would not see it happen.

P2) Nothing to something is a change — MoK

If you mean that something existing where nothing existed before, then you might be right. A tree in your garden where there was none when you moved in 25 years ago does not mean that it came from nothing.
The idea that the universe came from nothing is in my opinion an unfounded statement, because they have no idea what exactly was there before. If the big bang theory is correct then there was something there before.

P3) There is no time in nothing — MoK

Time is attached to action, not objects.

C) Therefore, nothing to something is logically impossible. (From P1-P3) — MoK

Yes maybe so, but not using your syllogism. Try this.

P1. Inside the cubic volume A there is a complete vacuum.
P2. Objects need material to exists
P3. There is no material in a A
C. Therefore something cannot come from nothing.

I have multiple questions that need answering. — an-salad

Did you try google?

First, if there are infinite whole numbers, and there are infinite decimals between 0 and 1, and there are infinite decimals between 0.1 and 0.12, does that mean that infinity itself is infinitely infinite infinitely (etc.) ? — an-salad

There maybe an infinite number of answers to this question, but I don't know any of them.

Also, will there be a manned mission to m87 by 2030? What if u brought a talisman from Cambodia? — an-salad

I just asked NASA, they said no. They might get to Mars by then but it will be a couple of hundred years before they attempt any kind of inter-galactic flights. And as far as they are concerned they don't give a damn where you buy your talisman from.

Also, Ive never left Chicago in my life. How is it different out there? Is the sky purple? Are there dinosaurs? Are there three large moons? — an-salad

What do you mean by "out there"? We sometimes have almost purple sky, there are iguanas that get pretty big but we only have three moons after the second or third six pack.

Also he's at a podium so I assumed he was a teacher. Possibly an English professor. — TiredThinker

I assumed he was the preacher at a southern baptist church, and from what I remember some of them do need to be more pacific.

Yep that is a good definition, stupid people fail to use the intelligence and education they were given, regardless of the level they are at.

But the blame for stupidity cannot be laid upon the educational systems, when they fail to do their job properly the product is ignorant people.
Stupidity is a personal choice or habit disease picked up from other stupid members of society.