FriendOfDeSoto

Everybody from a more recent generation looks on average younger than the generations before. In the middle ages people didn't have sunscreen and bathed once a year. But even if you look at older movies, Sean Connery is 31 in Dr No but he looks like in his 40s. All those cigarettes, the booze, the lack of regular exercise, and only eating full Scottish breakfasts all the time. Fast forward to today where more people worry about their appearance and next to not smoking, not drinking, eating healthy, exercising, etc. people have a range of cosmetics and/or cosmetic surgery at their disposal. Of course they look younger.

Imagine if the whole world was on some global time schedule.

UTC.

What's the fascination with this topic? Time zones are a major accomplishment because they allow us to schedule things further than our city limits. A train schedule leaving London and going to Paris, Cologne, Berlin, Warsaw, Kiev, Moscow, Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, etc. would be difficult to plan without them. Even this new time, let's call it BST, still needs time zones. Adjacent places need to agree on a common time. So we have accomplished nothing other than people having to learn their new 7am is 16:00. Which is counterintuitive.

The only country that clearly doesn't give a shit about time zones is PR China. And the only reason why you haven't heard many people thousands of miles west of Beijing having to live on Beijing time complain is the fact that it's the more sparsely populated areas, the more troubled, and the fact that criticising a decision by the communist party carries the danger of being sent to a reeducation camp even if you're neither a Uyghur nor a Tibetan.

Abolish DST and the few half hour zones and UTC will be just fine.

Probably because they know you'll just check on Amazon or similar. Back in the day, you had to look for a newspaper ad, get the catalogue, or visit the shop to find out. Now it's enough to just ~~wet~~ whet your appetite and you'll do the rest.

Also, pricing has gotten more complicated this millennium. Companies like charging different prices in different areas to different people to maximise their revenue.

To be fair to Google, they ignore everyone. All submissions are machine read and handled. The chance that a human is reading anything is exceedingly small. If you find an email address of an employee online, I'm sure it's not their primary account and/or all non address book senders' emails go directly to spam.

I'm sure the investigation of the infection here is good. The befuddlement over Google's replies and non-replies is what I'm commenting on. In my experience, that's unfortunately just Google doing Google things. They are no longer prohibited from being evil.

That will not ban me for saying my opinion freely.

That depends very much on your opinion and how you choose to express it. Can you give us examples of how and where your freely expressed opinion has run afoul of moderation before?

There is this idea in international politics that the rest of the world should have a say in US elections. Because the outcome inevitably affects us all outside the US. Since we don't have a say, we still rely on you to be the instrument of checks and balances on your government. And when it is as erratic and boneheaded as your current one, no amount of trade we do with the US should abrogate your responsibilities as the aforementioned instrument. Nor do I think we should stop encouraging protest against the dumb policy of tariffs, which is hurting your own economy as well. Or the end of Roe v Wade. Or the illegal kidnapping of a not much liked head of state. Or the illegal war in Iran. And while this is not exactly the example to follow, the French are rioting for much less these days. It started with bad conditions in schools.

Capitalism works very much with countries' economies complementing each other. You have the IT sector, high tech military companies, and whisky. Europe has luxury brands, wine, and various niche industries. You buy our shit and we buy yours and then there is no need to produce your shit here as well and vice versa.

That's a result of decades of a transatlantic relationship that worked in everybody's favour. We invest in your economy and get security guarantees in return. It's in a way an extended payoff of the Marshall plan. Your tech sector would be much worse if Europe had built up parallel infrastructures. Which nobody thought necessary because we were all friends. And especially arms deals are often decades in the making. So this "you buy our slop and guns so stop telling us to protest our idiotic government" doesn't sound quite right to my ears. I think that's too easy an out.

Rest assured though that Europe will be spending less of its money in the US. The loss of trust as a result of 45/47 is nearly instant. Rebuilding it will take more than a couple of saner administrations. Meanwhile, the US's purchasing power is shrinking too. Europeans buy military equipment in South Korea and Canada looks to the EU for closer ties. And we haven't even talked about the bubble yet.

It's surprising really that you aren't protesting more.

I don't have much experience with Collabora but what I have wasn't great. I'm very much in favour of governments ditching MS for something like Libre Office. But I also know that the formatting errors can be a pain in the røv especially if you have 20 year old Excel sheets full of important information spiked with macros that civil servants who have long since retired made ages ago. It's minefields within minefields.

So I think many things can be true at the same time. Denmark would like to rely less on American software and services. It was in the interest of the government to communicate that loudly at a time when the mad orange hand was reaching for Greenland (and may do so again because what's in a treaty?). The Collabora trial could have been an earnest effort that failed for many reasons I don't have trouble imagining. Or it was a show piece, a signal to the Danish voters as well as American companies. Your contacts may not be as certain any more. It may have led to some increased MS lobbying bts. And this doesn't mean this is the end of the effort. Just this one, at this point in time.

The big problem is this: success stories of governments switching to something open source are rare. You don't win elections when people are fed up with long processing times in government services. They'd have to be sufficiently pissed off with the mad orange to tolerate that out of spite. And with the urgency of the Greenland crisis having subsided, the level of pissedoffness will have also declined.

Get off my Farmville lawn!

The US didn't use colours for political leanings until 2000 when this whole blue, red, and purple terminology started in earnest. And using red for the conservative side is certainly unique.

Red has traditionally been the colour of socialism/social democrats. All the other colour assignments tend to vary by country. But blue or black or thereabouts tends to be conservative. Green introduced itself in the 70s.

Canada is just normal in terms of "political colours."

I think they are doing that wherever possible. Schools and ICUs moved underground where it is possible and necessary. In war time, you don't have the time or the money to finance big infrastructure projects unless there is a clear military advantage to them, e.g. reopening a bridge. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that EU funds have already been used to strengthen civilian infrastructure underground in some areas of Ukraine.

I just had a quick search about temperatures in a crematorium. Around 800 °C. A structure that can withstand that sort of temperatures is probably also able to withstand exploding batteries. If I remember the Galaxy 8 disaster, they go pop and then it's just mostly a chemical reaction releasing heat and gas. 30 batteries might be a lot. It may not end up destroying the place but it will possibly leave it in need of repair.

Why do you want to create this sort of fireworks show in a confined space where under normal circumstances nobody will be present to witness it?

Slim chance is the objective way of expressing a low likelihood. Fat chance is a colloquial expression using irony. You say one thing but mean the opposite. It's more often used as just a quippy two-word reply.

Language doesn't make sense. When flammable and inflammable can mean the same thing, all bets are off. You cannot make sense of these things; you can only accept them.