3 ms·

I hate to be that guy but if you're dying because the clocks changed and it was too much of a burden for you to re-adjust (like literally everyone else does) th

by RONROC 5y ago

I hate to be that guy but if you're dying because the clocks changed and it was too much of a burden for you to re-adjust (like literally everyone else does) then oh well. Policy decisions based on dodgy, whataboutism-esque figures is, in my opinion, what undergirded the incredibly incompetent COVID response here in the US, and elsewhere.

6chars 5y ago
I suspect you don't hate to be that guy all that much
- RONROC 5y ago
  You're probably right. You must be the other guy.
  - 6chars 5y ago
    Yep, and I'll admit I love being this guy!
davis_m 5y ago
> if you're dying because the clocks changed and it was too much of a burden for you to re-adjust (like literally everyone else does) then oh well. It's a good thing everyone's actions take place in a bubble and have no effect on others.
- RONROC 5y ago
  You strike me as one of the people in the "even if it saves one life" camp. The type of person who encounters the trolley problem and asks "can we just play a different game?"
seangrogg 5y ago
> Policy decisions based on dodgy, whataboutism-esque figures You're arguing that people should increase their exposure to acute myocardial infarction (among other concerns) to account for dodgy whataboutism-esque energy consumption figures from the 1910s and 40s-50s that have been observed to actually increase energy consumption in modern times?
- RONROC 5y ago
  Energy consumption? Myocardial infection? What are you blabbering on about?
  - seangrogg 5y ago
    The US observance of DST was done for energy consumption, largely coming out of our 2 world wars when energy was a key issue. That said, in watching a state that relatively recently adopted DST, it actually increased energy consumption[1]. Meanwhile, research has shown that the impact of losing an hour due to DST observation has an impact on the heart[2][3][4]. So this policy appears to be one that literally saves lives while at the same time having the additional benefit of potentially reducing energy consumption at a time when we're dealing with an energy crisis. [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14429/w14429.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14429/w144... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189320/ [3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/1/1/e000019.full.pdf https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/1/1/e000019.full.p... [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002914912024435 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029...
trophycase 5y ago
Ok well in that case we'll choose the simpler of the two which is just stop changing the clocks.
thehappypm 5y ago
Yikes. It’s not that someone had a stroke because they found it too hard to change the clocks. It means, measurably, that bad things can happen. Maybe your doctor is a bit more tired because he lost an hour of sleep and his surgery goes a little wrong and you’re dead. Worth it to change the clocks?

by RONROC 5y ago

6chars 5y ago

I suspect you don't hate to be that guy all that much

RONROC 5y ago
You're probably right. You must be the other guy.
- 6chars 5y ago
  Yep, and I'll admit I love being this guy!

davis_m 5y ago

> if you're dying because the clocks changed and it was too much of a burden for you to re-adjust (like literally everyone else does) then oh well. It's a good thing everyone's actions take place in a bubble and have no effect on others.

RONROC 5y ago
You strike me as one of the people in the "even if it saves one life" camp. The type of person who encounters the trolley problem and asks "can we just play a different game?"

seangrogg 5y ago

> Policy decisions based on dodgy, whataboutism-esque figures You're arguing that people should increase their exposure to acute myocardial infarction (among other concerns) to account for dodgy whataboutism-esque energy consumption figures from the 1910s and 40s-50s that have been observed to actually increase energy consumption in modern times?

RONROC 5y ago
Energy consumption? Myocardial infection? What are you blabbering on about?
- seangrogg 5y ago
  The US observance of DST was done for energy consumption, largely coming out of our 2 world wars when energy was a key issue. That said, in watching a state that relatively recently adopted DST, it actually increased energy consumption[1]. Meanwhile, research has shown that the impact of losing an hour due to DST observation has an impact on the heart[2][3][4]. So this policy appears to be one that literally saves lives while at the same time having the additional benefit of potentially reducing energy consumption at a time when we're dealing with an energy crisis. [1] https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14429/w14429.pdf https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14429/w144... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189320/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189320/ [3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/1/1/e000019.full.pdf https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/1/1/e000019.full.p... [4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002914912024435 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00029...

trophycase 5y ago

Ok well in that case we'll choose the simpler of the two which is just stop changing the clocks.

thehappypm 5y ago

Yikes. It’s not that someone had a stroke because they found it too hard to change the clocks. It means, measurably, that bad things can happen. Maybe your doctor is a bit more tired because he lost an hour of sleep and his surgery goes a little wrong and you’re dead. Worth it to change the clocks?