In germany the terms are Sommerzeit (summer time) and Winterzeit (winter time). Of course everybody would chose the former as summer sound better than winter but the latter is "better" as it corresponds more to "wake up when there is light" which is favorable to health, performance etc.
The report linked in the article has BC support _massively_ in favour of "more light in the evenings" instead of "wake up when there is light", citing health and wellness concerns. "Better" seems a matter of opinion.
That's a very dishonest take, as I'm sure you know that Sommerzeit proponents have reasons other than "summer sounds better than winter".
For example most people just wake up and go to work in the morning, but in the evening they meet friends, BBQ, hike/run through nature, do sports etc., and prefer doing those activities while it's bright outside.
My "very dishonest take" is the result of the polls after the EU parliament voted to stop the time change.
The question in these polls had been which time the person would prefer. A big majority in Germany chose "summer time". So without any reasons given/discussed/researched the preference is summer time.
Of course there are proponents with reasons for or against this or that time but this doesn't matter as the majority does not decide by reasons.
My point is that alone the naming the time "summer" or "winter" influences the preference to a big extent.
What's dishonest about your take is your strawman interpretation of the poll results. Just because you disagree with the majority of people does not mean they simply misunderstand the question and think
"hurr durr summer better than winter, me choosey summer"
Well, at least thats the way I would have responded to the question when interviewed. Maybe I'm dumber or more mindless than the average german.
There were say some 100s of people called by phone, asked a lot of questions about a lot of topics, one of them is "which do you prefer: summer or winter time" - I would have said summer (without thinking to much) because I like the long summer evenings too.
That has nothing to do with misunderstanding the question.
It is of course possible that the average interviewee is well prepared or thinks long and hard before answering without letting the wording influence their answer.
But you should at least consider the possibility that also the german naming (summer/winter) could influence some people (like me) in their answers.
(I think the wording can have a big influence (maybe because of my linguistic background) but you are free to disagree)
What stops you from going to work one hour early, so you get off earlier as well? Most employers these days allow flexible working hours.
And if we are permanently moving our clocks to advance by an hour, why stop at just one hour? Why not have +2h or +3h so we get even more brighter evenings.
"Most employers" definitely don't allow flexible working hours. You have to be in specific sectors – basically just "modern" tech companies – to have that privilege. And that is a very tiny slice of the working population.
Because most people don’t have that degree of flexibility. When I was commuting I’d have been happy to have double DST or whatever you want to call it.
Im very healthy and performant during sommerzeit. It’s in winterzeit when I get depressed bc there isn’t enough daylight in the evenings (it gets dark around 3pm-4pm in winter… that sucks big time)
I live in Köln, and the reason people want to move to Sommerzeit year round is that during Winterzeit near the solstice, the sun rises at 8:30 and sets at 16:30, which means that most people are not getting any daytime sun if they work inside.
They get a tiny bit of sunlight right as they arrive at work, and then when they work all day, step outside and the sun is already gone, which is really depressing. Many many people look at this situation and decide that if they have to choose between light before work or after work, they'd take the light after work.
but can't you basically make anything a composite noun in German? That it's a single word doesn't really help you decided if it has enough presence unto itself to be defined in the dictionary.
Seems like they would have just as much of a problem since the issue is delineating when a "phrase" becomes a "word"
More to the point, how to German dictionaries handle this?
Is there a distinction between words that get enumerated and compound nouns that do not?
It does seem, though, that German speakers might be more comfortable with the fuzziness that apparently exists at the edges of what the word "word" means.
In general, transparent compounds, i.e. those whose meaning can be derived from the elements, are not in the dictionary. Mushroom soup is transparent; Krankenhaus, which means hospital, but is literally sick-people home, isn't.
true, but you'd be wrong to assume that Germans only compound words if both parts are nouns, e.g. "Gehweg" (walk way) and "Springseil" (jump rope) use the base of a verb.
We do actually have "Kochwasser" ("kochen" means "to cook", "kochend" means "boiling") but that's not boiling water ("kochendes Wasser") but for water used for cooking.
In Dutch we indeed happily do this even for English loanwords like "creditcard" or something more obscure like "lockpick". When in doubt, remove the space.
That happens often with domain names, but then you get expertsexchange.com, penisland.net, whorepresents.com, therapistfinder.com, a Dutch pre-match analysis site voorspel.nl, or a site about the game overspel.nl.
Peter Norvig - The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data
"But by excluding teens who were already showing mental health symptoms, the new study points to a potential causal link between cannabis use and later mental health diagnoses. Additional research is needed to understand the link fully."
Hm, but this does not exclude the possibility that the being prone to mental illness comes with a little bit higher tendency to consume cannabis...
Similarly, cigarettes also have a very strong correlation with schizophrenia. Completely non-causal, but it's hard to find a non-hospitalized schizophrenic who does not smoke.
When I read this article the other day I had the exact same thought. Is this simply correlation, or is it causation? Is teenage usage an indicator of a possible underlying condition that hasn’t fully manifest? Is it an early form of self medication?
And the only way to tell is to randomly split teenagers into two groups: cannabis vs. control. But no parent would give consent, so we will never know.
Its a correlation result and not causation. The author makes a mistake, off course. Mental diseases have effects since deep in a young age and push for increased marijuana use, but also nicotine, benzos and, may be, obesity, aggressiveness, school dropout, parent's divorce, low vitD and a long list of possible factors. All these will be correlations.
If you are able now to create 10 products instead of 1 in the same time frame you will have to plan, review and maintain 10 things instead of 1. How can this work? I mean to double your productivity is a huge jump but 10x sounds unsustainable.
Well, AI fanatics aren't about longevity or maintaining things. The fact that the LLM spit out a bunch of code is good enough for them. Drive-by PRs and vaporware are their bread & butter.
Apple had been around 12 til 2019, now around 32 [1]. They were/are discounted for a long time but some kind of stocks had a price never based on fundamentals.
> Even getting your neighbors to re-position their Ring cameras (which they have every right to install) can become very difficult.
In Germany it's prohibited by law to point your private surveillance camera to public spaces like the boardwalk, no recording of these areas is allowed. I think thats the way it should be. Unfortunately in some areas (e.g. train stations) it is allowed.
The gendarme might actually arrest the attacker. The security camera will do nothing (but record). And having the policeman standing there is about as much a deterrent as a "Smile--You're Being Recorded" sign.
This argument justifies CCTV surveillance of all public places.
Is that what you intend to be arguing for? In any case, there needs to be more nuance in the discussion than a one-liner.
I think the quantity of surveillance matters. When it’s just a few places, then it’s a minor intrusion on liberty. When it’s a lot of places, it’s a major intrusion that will facilitate the (further) rise of authoritarianism.
What counts as a "super public busy place" ? The airport? The bus terminal? The local library? All major roads that experience rush hour traffic?
Who is the person who says where the cutoff line is? What if that authority wants to move the line to include everything? Or nothing? Do they even need to provide notice to the public of their actions?
Who should be able to access to all this footage? Public? Government investigative branches only? What about the system administrators?
Does this footage require attestation to prove it's legitimacy in a world where AI can generate footage?
How long should this footage exist for? Do I have to trust not just current admins and their superiors but all the people who may be in those roles in perpetuity? IE do I have to trust people who haven't even been born yet?
Is it allowed to be centralised, so people can easily be tracked from one site to another for every step outside their house? Or should each site have separate data housing with access terms to match so that tracking a person is a significant task?
..
..
There are a lot of concerns. You may argue that there isn't a lot of nuances because you have a set idea of how it should all go. But others may differ.
There's just....not. It's a pretty well established concept by now. For almost 50 years or so.
> What counts as a "super public busy place" ? The airport? The bus terminal? The local library? All major roads that experience rush hour traffic?
Yes to all of these.
> Who is the person who says where the cutoff line is?
Not a person, but a sound methodology ideally. Kind of like what we've mostly been doing even if it isn't formalized.
> What if that authority wants to move the line to include everything?
Yes, the slippery slope is a problem, agreed. That's why we need to be vigilant in responding to government plans.
> Do they even need to provide notice to the public of their actions?
In a civilized democracy, they should.
> Government investigative branches only?
Yes, pretty much.
> What about the system administrators?
Not if it can be avoided.
> Does this footage require attestation to prove it's legitimacy in a world where AI can generate footage?
No.
> How long should this footage exist for?
3 - 6 months is typically standard.
> Do I have to trust not just current admins and their superiors but all the people who may be in those roles in perpetuity? IE do I have to trust people who haven't even been born yet?
You have to trust the system is accountable.
> Is it allowed to be centralised,
Ideally, no.
> Or should each site have separate data housing with access terms to match so that tracking a person is a significant task?
Bingo.
> There are a lot of concerns. You may argue that there isn't a lot of nuances because you have a set idea of how it should all go. But others may differ.
I'd argue your concerns have already been addressed by current systems that have worked fine for decades.
> I'd argue your concerns have already been addressed by current systems that have worked fine for decades.
The issue is that times are changing. "Worked fine for decades" doesn't apply to the Ring Doorbell or Flock. Or that authorities exactly want to have all footage in the one place, from train stations too.
Modern computers allow for scaling of capabilities that are only tolerable at all when limited in number.
IE the capability to track an individual's every movement is tolerable if it is limited in number, has oversight, and only used by appropriate authorities against bad people that everyone can agree are bad.
But being able to track minority groups en masse as modern systems are capable of is clearly an issue.
I see your parameters to the above questions as mostly reasonable although I'd rather not have the cameras everywhere in the first place. But do you think even your reasonable seeming desires are being adhered to?
I'm not arguing for mass surveillance, I'm arguing for keeping surveillance in busy places which as you admit has worked well for decades. I'm against the Ring/Flock dystopian nightmare as well.
> But do you think your desires are being adhered to?
No, but I think an apathetic population are the problem, and I don't know how to solve it.
> But there are other ways that we could figure out who to blame after the fact that don't require everything you will ever do to be recorded, forever.
No one said anything about retaining footage forever.
What are your suggestions for help finding an attacker without CCTV footage?
Well, not just what I propose but a lot of aspects of society would be improved if we could subject people to mandatory reeducation and/or limit who gets to vote. Even just requiring a college degree to vote, or a simple quiz testing knowledge of what is being voted on would do wonders.
I remember looking at it about 20 (?) years ago and came back disappointed that I could not use it on my Mac.
Well, at least I was able to revive this feeling today... :-(
Even if you are right and everything is the same regarding surveillance and regulation: there are other important aspects that make the move to move european data out of the US worthwhile.
reply