It’s probably assuming that you’re also getting fries, a drink and an ice cream cone each or something. That simply cannot be enough.

Yeah, and they act like learning about a new skin cream on the street is going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as learning about a new study on “gun bans”, even though people have been studying this for decades and the results largely don’t change, only the public perception of them.

It’s like if they showed people a new study for “Earth gravity” vs “Moon gravity” and act surprised when people don’t immediately catch on when their numbers say the moon makes you weigh more. You wouldn’t be expecting that result OR trust a random person on the street to change your view of gravity with a chart of 4 numbers.

Yes, they found bias. Cool.

Alternate title: A single “study” presented from someone on the street is typically not enough to change anyone’s perspective on a subject, especially if that “study” presents “facts” that are contradictory to the listener’s previous knowledge.

Humans aren’t rational. Humans are rationalizing. If someone on the street giving you a basic chart with 4 numbers on it is enough to change your mind, you likely didn’t have much of an opinion to begin with.

The difference is between cursing and cursing AT someone.

“The garage door broke.” “Ah, fuck.” - Fine “You fuck.” - Not acceptable

If you get a written warning, it’s probably time to start looking for a new job regardless.

I remember getting a hand-me-down digital ‘black book’ to store phone numbers during the age of the palm pilot. It had a ‘dial’ button and a speaker on the back. You could pick up the phone, put the speaker against the phone’s mouthpiece and it would ‘dial’ by playing the correct tones. Blew. My. Mind.

That depends. Do you want them to learn, or do you want to feel superior to them?

“If you’re trapped and can’t figure out how to escape the trap by yourself, you deserve to be trapped?”

Is that really what you’re saying here?

“What does cyanide have to do with eating to survive?” It doesn’t - exactly like eating meat. You don’t need either to survive, and both are completely “natural”.

By saying that “partaking in natural things should be free from judgement”, you’re also arguing that we shouldn’t judge someone when they commit murder, rape, incest, and a whole slew of morally objectionable things because those things happen to also exist in nature.

If you meant that, you’re too far gone to have a reasonable conversation. If that’s not what you meant, then you need to rephrase your argument because “natural” does not mean “good”.

Being “natural” is not an indicator of “good” or “bad”.

Cyanide is natural. Eyeglasses are unnatural.

Maybe pick better metrics for society.

That makes sense. This church was ‘non-denominational’, which meant that if they could just have the church band play a jam session and still make money, they would.

… Y’all never had that happen?

“The Lord has other plans for the service today, so we’re going to continue in this state of worship.”

That encourages bot or otherwise low-effort comment spamming which we also don’t want.

Seriously. Someone never clicked on the “you are an idiot” popup that auto-played music, moved around the screen, prevented task manager from opening and cloned itself if it was closed.

What if the story is from a week ago? Yes, your 3am happens at the same time as their 3am, but your ‘night’ is still their ‘day’.

You’d have to intuitively know every time zone and their offset in order to have an immediate understanding the way you do now that 3AM is the middle of the night. It requires an additional question or lookup table, which makes it objectively worse of a system for humans to use and remember.

The complexity with scheduling will still exist - it’s only shifting where the complexity lies. Scheduling a meeting at 1PM Sol time is no guarantee that either person would be awake at that time, depending where they are on Earth or Mars.

But we’re past the point where humans need to do the math. There’s global calendars that will do the translating for us rather than asking the vast majority of humans to change.

The many people

8/24 time zones, or 1/3rd of the planet would deal with that at work.

I used to work both.

With universal time, the answer is meaningless without also knowing where they live. If you have a friend who is traveling and says “Oh man, I stayed up until 3AM last night.” Did they go to bed early or late? Not only do you have to clarify their normal sleep schedule, you also have to figure out where they currently are before “3AM” has any relevant meaning.

It’s objectively worse for communication. As I’ve mentioned to other posters, we already have GMT if you want to use that. Let me know how well people understand you when using only GMT for scheduling.

I’m glad GMT exists as the middle point for us to use personalized time zones, but don’t want to lose that “midday” is when the sun is high in the sky and “midnight” is partway through the dark time.

You’re forgetting about days of the week, which would change part-way through the day now.

“Are you free on the 18th?”

“We’ll, we start work at 20:00, so are you taking about the 18th from 0000 - 0400, or from 2000 - 0000? Those are two different days for us.”

There’s a spike in car accidents, accidental deaths and general loss of productivity for around a week at both times when we change the clock every year.

A single person losing an hour of sleep is manageable, but it becomes problematic when it’s EVERYONE. It literally kills people.

Yes. That’s the point. What question would you ask otherwise? Because it’s not a standard question that exists right now.

It’s introducing a new concept that’s just as confusing, but without a common reference point. “When is day for you?” “What’s your light schedule?”

If you want to use a single time for everyone, we already have GMT, no one uses it for daily use because it’s obtuse as hell if you don’t live within an hour or two of it.