I'm surprised at how positive the response to this has been.
Whenever I've tried to reason through why we change our clocks twice a year I've found that it makes sense to do so (at least in my case).
Also, I've quite enjoyed experiencing the switches throughout my life. They've provided for a mildly entertaining small talk topic, an opportunity to fix my circadian cycles and some measure of excitement when getting to sleep for an extra hour.
That said, I recognize (now that I've seen this HN thread) that a LOT of people disliked the status quo of having to switch.
I just hope that my country won't follow the US in this, but I'm afraid we will.
This blog has had a huge impact in my life and I'll be forever grateful to Aron for uploading it to the internet and also grateful to Fede_V who shared the blog in this HN comment a few years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18176929
My life is much more fun and fulfilling thanks to its influence.
There are lots of other great blogs but none have had as great of an impact on my outlook.
Maybe it is because I was a teen then, but I heard about vsco a long long time ago (unless ~6/7 years is not long). I thought it was already on its death throes though, barely anyone I know uses it.
Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 was among the worst nuclear disasters in history; not only because its human toll was so high, but also because it was the "final straw" -- so to say -- in public opinion in Western countries that made people scared of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy remains the safest, cleanest way to produce energy but Chernobyl and Fukushima significantly reduced the funding going into this kind of research, because public opinion was very much against nuclear power. It is getting better recently, but if history shows anything in the next 20 to 30 years we will have another disaster that will change public opinion again.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. I had been thinking in terms of the technology rather than in its public perception (although sure… that perception influences funding for the technology).
Now I see that I would have been well served by looking up 'nuclear 2011' and 'nuclear 1986' since those disasters are very famous.
One would hope that after such a disaster, and given the pros of the underlying technology, more funding and research would be focused on safety, rather than abandoning it.
I wonder to which degree has nuclear power's association with nuclear weapons affected its public perception.
EDIT: Almost forgot: I did skip a year during elementary, not sure about her case.