Sludgeyy

You can get a dongle that lets you charge and plug in headphones at the same time.

On a day in California, where the sun rises at 7 am PST, it would be equivalent to making it 3 pm UTC.

You think people in California are going to be happy waking up at 3 pm, going to work at 5pm-1am, then going to sleep at 7am?

People are angry that they get an extra hour of sleep one night and lose one another. 2 days out of the year.

You really think you're going to sell these people on waking up at 3 pm and going to bed at 7am?

Working hours being 9am-5pm vs 1900-0300 are just numbers.

Working hours being 9am-5pm PST vs 9am-5pm PDT are just numbers

DST just tries to shift everyone to a beneficial sun zone for a part of the year.

Depending where you live and mainly how close you are to a time zone line depends if keeping it, getting rid of it, or keeping the current system is beneficial.

Maine could be in it's own time zone as far east as it really is. The idea that Michigan is in the same time zone is absurd. Michigan should be in CST. That would drop them back an hour. If you talked to someone in Michigan they probably hate DST. Their DST should be their current standard time and then they should fall back to CST if they wanted to do the DST switch thing. They would get a lot more sunlight in the morning.

Sunrised in NY and CA at 7 am today in their respective time

They are 3 hours apart in time zones.

So if you wanted everyone to use same clock and for the sun to rise at 7am in NY. That would mean the sun would rise at 4am in CA.

The sun would set at 1:30pm in CA

Someone currently working a 9-5pm. It would become a 6-2pm job.

How is that not going to cause chaos?

So this chart doesn't measure sunlight levels through the day

What do you mean by "sunlight levels"?

Depending how north or south you are is how much much total light you are going to get. Shifting an hour does not add or subtract total sunlight time.

The whole point of daylight savings time is to get the "arbitrary numbers" to line up to a daily schedule.

This chart shows you how well the three systems would achieve getting you those "arbitrary" times.

If the sun rose at 4 am and set at 1:30 pm. Sure, you could plan your whole day differently around that. Wake up at 4am instead of 7am. Go to bed at 8pm instead of 11pm. Work at 6 am instead of 9am, get off at 2pm instead of 5pm.

Yes they are "arbitrary" but humans are not computers. Having to go to bed at 8pm to wake up at 4am is different in our minds than going to bed at 11pm and getting up at 7am. Still 8 hours of sleep but it is perceived quite differently.

Having everyone on one time zone would be the best thing ever.

Have you really thought this through?

It's 12 pm in New York.

It's 9 am in California.

Sun rised at 7 am in NY today

Sun rised at 7 am in CA today

It was 10 am in NY when sun rose in CA

So let's say we get on one clock.

That means sun rises in California at 4 am

So now everyone in California has to shift their whole schedule around that.

7 am sunrise, 9am-5pm work (Sun set begins at 4.5pm)

Would become 4 am sunrise, 6am-2pm work (Sun set begins at 1:30pm)

How is that the best thing ever?

This would work great in some places, others might finish lunch as the sun rises.

Because compromise makes neither side truly happy

We are already trying to compromise with switch back and forth.

30 minutes just makes it over complicated and satisfies neither side

I wasn't saying it was the best way, just a way. I'm not sure if it is the best. But the most simple way to make sure everyone's basic needs are met is to give everyone their basic needs and then figure out who has enough to give to others.

The flaw with capitalism is that someone of no "value" gets no value

If a company can lay off one worker and become more efficient, that is great in capitalism. Just the one worker gets screwed.

If that worker was say a robot where you could sit it on the shelf and not worry about it, then that's fine. But that worker is a human with needs and capitalism doesn't help that person because they have no "value".

The idea that we have to manufacture jobs for these people to "earn" money to live is another solution.

Putting money into the hands of the poor stimulates the economy.

It can stimulate the economy, it's not a guarantee.

Always enjoyed this story:

Two economists are walking in a forest

The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit.

They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $100 and eats a pile of shit.

Walking a little more, the first economist looks at the second and says, "You know, I gave you $100 to eat shit, then you gave me back the same $100 to eat shit. I can't help but feel like we both just ate shit for nothing."

"That's not true", responded the second economist. "We increased the GDP of the forest by $200!"

That being said, handing money out to everyone has an inflationary effect, so there would have to be some thought put into countering that. And I guarantee payday loan places would find a way to keep the poor impoverished.

You touched on one reason it wouldn't be guaranteed.

Giving loans to people would be better than UBI. UBI should be viewed as a loan and not free money. If you were ever able to pay it back, you should.

Another problem with capitalism is that a potential worker has no time to hold out for better options. You're 18 and poor, you have to accept the first job offered as fast as possible or you won't have shelter or food.

Giving these people a loan or UBI means they can get by until they find something that benefits them. If they want to tell the fast food place "I'll do it for $15 and not $12 an hour" it's possible

It's crazy that the difference between $12 and $15 is 25%. A 25% raise is a large one.

I appreciated reading your comment!

Let's say 50k is average income

Basic income is 10k

The average person would get 10k in UBI but pay 10k more in taxes

They will have 50k dollars

Someone that makes 100k would get the 10k in UBI but would have to pay 20k more in taxes.

They will have 90k dollars

Someone making 15k (federal min wage) would get 10k in UBI and pay nothing in taxes

They will have 25k dollars

This is simplified, but the idea is that all three people still made 165k combined. Just the person at the bottom got some help.

UBI does not increase the total amount of money in the economy. Just moves it from the rich to the poor.

The average person is still going to have the same spending power

UBI only exists to solve a problem of capitalism. Other systems could have a UI like communism. But it's the flaws of capitalism that needs it to correct itself.

Social programs exist in capitalism and have existed for years. They are just a complex way of solving a basic problem. "How do we get poor people money?"

Personally, I'd be for UBMI (Universal Bare Minimum Income). Everyone should be provided bare minimum from the society. Food, water, shelter, etc. If you can afford to pay it back, great, if you can't, that's fine too. But when people talk about UBI it's always "how much??". And it should be the bare minimum to survive and not be forced to run the capitalism rat race. If you're content to sit in a small shelter and eat 3 meals a day, the government should give it to you. The government gives it to people who break the law and are no where near as deserving

That was my thought, but apparently, this tee is designed exactly for this purpose. $40 for just the tee.

This tee fitting is designed to be snaked both ways

A wye fitting is designed to be snaked one direction

For example, you'd use a wye fitting after a gutter. If you're going to snake it, it will not be in the direction of the gutter. You're not sending the snake up the gutter. The wye would allow you to snake the portion of pipe you need easier.**

If this was in the middle of a long sewer pipe with no other clean outs near by. Then the tee is probably the better choice.

I was probably 7 or 8.

I lost a tooth and put it under my pillow without telling my parents. Toothfairy never came.

Didn't believe in any of the mythical things after that.

Edit: Oh and we play along. He's 14 and definitely knows but the wife enjoys it more than he does. So he's milking it and I applaud him for it.