BC didn't get rid of it. Now it's permanent.

They got rid of the biannual clock change, which is obviously what they're talking about.

"Daylight Saving Time" refers to adjusting the time in a way that noon does not try to track solar noon for a timezone in order to shift daylight later in the clock-day.

Tracking solar time would mean it's equivalently light out at 5AM and at 7PM. Nearly noone is awake at 5AM. Nearly everyone is awake at 7PM. You can wave your arms around and say "well then why don't people wake up earlier", but they have jobs and stuff. The "scientific evidence" for standard time is flimsy.

People did wake up at way earlier. Working hours have shifted past by a few hours during the last century, so it seems like people actually prefer that.

If we were trying to adjust the time to track the solar time, wouldn't we need to adjust the clocks every day as days get shorter/longer? I keep seeing this in every post discussing Daylight Savings. What's the obsession with tracking solar noon?

> If we were trying to adjust the time to track the solar time, wouldn't we need to adjust the clocks every day as days get shorter/longer?

No (not within a min or two). When days get shorter, it's not like they just lose daylight in the evening.

> If we were trying to adjust the time to track the solar time,

No, but

> wouldn't we need to adjust the clocks every day as days get shorter/longer

This is how hours used to work at least in Roman times, but I think also into the Medieval Ages.

That’s what the actual news release and title say if you read the article you are commenting on.

Not sure why the title got changed for this post.

Did the LLMs form a polycule?

Github should charge everyone $1 more to disable Copilot on accounts.

I could but I do not want to.

Some desktop versions of GNU/Linux have rough edges. Self-important grognards think everyone should "git gud" and install Arch or waste a weekend waiting for Gentoo to compile in order to optimize the install. This article along with this one (https://www.theverge.com/tech/858910/linux-diary-gaming-desk...) go on about using an Arch-based distro rather than a Debian-based distro.

Clearly there will be challenges, minor or major.

The failure of these articles is the authors aren't going for distros that "just work". Want to undercut Microsoft's user base, grow GNU/Linux, and herald the year of Linux on desktop that's been promised for decades? Keep it simple.

Majority of people going online with their computers are browsing the web, doomscrolling, and engaging on social media. They're not pentesting with Rust, running an instance of a LLM, or setting up a webserver for giggles.

Keep it simple.

But pushing Arch and other beardy distros with these kinds of articles reeks of gatekeeping as if only "smart" people are allowed to engage online and control their experience. Everyone else should suck it up with Microsoft having Copilot phone home since they don't deserve to know better. And I don't care how much preamble they give about Debian-based and beginner distros, they're just wagging their dicks to easily-awed proles and relishing imagined egoboos from other neo-Stallmans.

Article reads like an anti-Linux post because the author goes on about, "muh mouse buttons" and "how many desktop environments?" Screw that, do something simple like Ubuntu that just works without decision paralysis. The whole piece reads like, "Linux is good if you're smart so git gud" esp. since he makes a point of crowing how it's Arch-based.

> The decision was made to ban him here, try to get him fired though I don't know if we succeeded, and attack him with sockpuppets on Reddit, and it seems to have worked because you don't hear his name much.

I am going to be uncivil but I hope the odds beat you.