> The problems it creates are mostly for programmers who can't be bothered to write good software
Myopic and ill informed.
> A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics estimated that "the transition into DST caused over 30 deaths at a social cost of $275 million annually", primarily by increasing sleep deprivation.[128]
> An LSE study found that DST transition increases people's feeling of being rushed for time, and the number of hours spent on leisure decreases by roughly 10 minutes following the transition and more specifically the spring transition into DST decreases life satisfaction by around 1.44 per cent.
I think this summarizes it. The negative effects are concentrated around the transition. The positive effects are spread throughout the year. You lose 1.44% life satisfaction for a few days, and gain immeasurably more over the course of the year.
Sure. Russia abolished time shifting in 2011, but since then they've had 1 national and several regional time zone adjustments as people grapple with the reality of having to commit to 1 time zone at high latitude. The EU was in discussion to abolish their shifting around 2018, and the Russian example was often cited by the opposition as a cautionary tale. The EU might have gonna through with it otherwise.
Equivalent protections have been dismantled by the Trump admin in the US.
I believe the argument is that regulation encumbers airlines and, instead, the free market will incentivise participants to handle outages and delayed flights in a competitive way.
One incentive that could work in the US without having to completely change how elections work would be for the government to actually shut down when it runs out of money. Shut downs are only remotely politically viable because nearly all the parts of the government that people regularly rely on more or less keep working.
This means the public backlash from shutting down the government is significantly muted, and it gives the opportunity for some less intelligent people to point to it as proof the government doesn't actually do anything. But it only works because the government basically forces employees in those roles to work for free with the promise of being eventually paid at some point, which is pretty weird when you really think about it.
Consider an alternate version of events where the government running out of money means all government functions immediately cease. No airport security, no air traffic control. Federal law enforcement goes home. The military stands down. Every federal government function stops October 1st since there was no longer any money to pay for it. Not only would the government not still be shut down, it never would have shut down since the impact would be so immediate and so significant that politicians would never risk it actually happening.
Indeed. In Australia, a government was once dismissed after failing to pass supply bills in the Senate (Supply bills allocate money to the government). The Governor-General resolved the deadlock by dissolving Parliament and calling an election. The event is known as “The Dismissal”. It remains one of the key examples of the Governor-General’s reserve powers in action.
This was an example of foreign interference (from where exactly is likely to remain unknown[0]); not an apolitical governor general stabilising the political system.
Isn't this "as intended" in the westminster-style system? The govt is formed by MPs from the majority party (or alliance). By definition they MUST be able to pass ALL money bills, which only require a simple majority. Any failure to pass a money bill is equivalent to the govt no longer holding a majority support in parliament. And that means either the king/president/govgen invites someone else from the current parliament who they have good reason to believe DOES (potentially) have support of majority of the parliament, or dissolve the parliament and call fresh elections if there is no such majority.
I am not quite sure why an action with such a clear established precedent be considered foreign interference? or was it the case that there WAS a suitable candidate with a possible majority but they were NOT invited by the govgen to try and win a trust vote in parliament?
It was very much an edge case, with one of Whitlam's senators on leave and recent changes to territory rules giving additional senators to the opposition party (as I recall ...) the ability to block supply appeared suddenly out of the blue.
Whitlam did move to call an election (rather than be sacked) which likely would have removed the blocked supply threat as he was at the time an extremely popular PM in Australia (loved by the common masses, despised by many elites) .. and when attending the Queens Repreresentative (the Governor General) to advise about calling an election .. he was removed by the G-G.
Strictly speaking the "as intended" outcome should have been to resolve a looming (not yet happened) supply crisis by allowing the people of Australia to vote, instead the government of the day (Whitlam's) was removed on a technical reading against the spirit of intended resolution.
There's a peer comment here that linked to a 2020 article on the finally released royal correspondance that's worth a read. The US influence angle has merit also, they had weight in the game for sure, how much and whether it tipped the balance is debatable.
Literally reams of contraversay here, the G-G acted autonomously and likely to save his own neck as Whitlam intended to replace the G-G, additionally many outside powers (the UK and the US) were whispering in the ears of those with levers to pull seeking to dump Whitlam; he was returning real power to the people, providing socialised health and education to the masses, asking questions about the role of secret American bases on AU soil, etc.
The system is setup to prevent political opportunism and provide predictability and rigidity of the system at the expense of being slower to respond to constituents.
The incentive is still there, it’s just a few years off in the next election.
(That being said… sighing loudly as he gestures around him at all the political opportunism…)
Yeah that sounded a lot more viable before we had our faces rubbed in what a political party in control of all the machinery of the country could get away with in the space of one election cycle.
> There is no serious incentive to avoid this in the US. In fact, you're incentivised to be complicit in the shutdown and then blame the other party.
Which is precisely what's happening.
Im frankly done with the children bickering. But in all seriousness, neither party really cares about us. Republicans are engorged with the tech neofascists, and the democrats are caught up with special interest du jour, with a healthy smattering of surveillance as well.
Ive seen how the governments (local, state, federal) operate. It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.
Not sure what my plans are, honestly. Take it as I can, i guess.
> It's fucked, and its going to be a long time to fix it, if possible.
There's no fixing this. We've allowed the most psychotic lunatics on planet Earth control over the most absolutely insane weapons of mass destruction and all the armies and police, and those people have already decided amongst themselves that their little game of "he who dies with the most money wins" is far more important than all the life on Earth.
You are woefully misinformed. There are protests initiated by fringe right wingers, but even those fringe right wingers would be approximately centrists in the US. Virtually nobody wants a DJT-like figure in the UK, for many reasons.
I'd be more critical of the news sources I consumed, if I were you.
I'm a software engineer with 10+ years of experience. I'm also a poker player that has a very deep understanding of the game. Writing a poker bot that can beat the game is absolutely not trivial. There are "solvers" that use counterfactual regret minimization to solve a constrained version of the game for specific scenarios. These are useful for understanding the principles of the game but they are not the cheat sheet people think they are.
I think people fundamentally don't get that poker is not like chess. The vast majority of money I win is from identifying when players are too attached to their hand and never folding or when they just give up on their hand and fold to any bet.
I'm an ex online poker pro. You probably don't have the deep understanding of the game you think you have. Bots were already destroying the field up to mid-stakes 10 years ago.
I'm literally winning money playing online today playing 400nl (200nl with a straddle, in the US).
Please explain to me how you think these bots work? Do you think they are literally hooked into solvers and solving these hands in real time? If you actually understood poker you'd understand that the winrate from GTO is not good enough to make real money playing poker without a massive sample size, the game is all about exploiting players when they deviate from GTO. Explain to me how you program your poker bot to know intuitively that a player has too many bluff combinations when a flush arrives on the turn after they check back on the flop therefor you should call wider than standard? There are a billion little unique situations where people don't bluff enough, bluff too much, call too much or call too little and that is where the winrate from poker comes from.
This is the difference between having a 3 bb / 100 winrate and a 10-15 bb / 100 winrate. Maybe there are a bunch of shitty poker bots winning at 1 bb / 100 but if they are winning it's because some players suck really really bad, not because they are playing perfect poker.
I'm a current online poker pro but probably not for much longer. Bots are a serious and real problem and they do beat the games for a good winrate. But it's still possible to make money even in environments with some bots as long as you can find games with fish. And some games on geofenced sites (the OP said they play in Michigan) or other small pools don't appear to have bot problems.
If a sufficiently good bot exists it must be highly profitable and since its software it would be easy to port to every site. Surely you could just get an address in Michigan cheaply and would have financial incentive to.
I feel like there was (or will be, if it somehow hasn’t yet occurred) a very short gap between one site being unwinnable and all sites being so.
There's a lot of complexity here that you're overlooking. First of all, the sites have KYC and require geolocation software so it's not trivial to play. Especially not for the bot developers which have tended to live in Eastern Europe or Central Asia. They'll just go wherever is easiest to make money so it doesn't necessarily follow that every site would be overrun.
Second of all, poker is fairly capital intensive and whenever your bot account gets banned the site will confiscate your funds, so there's risk involved as well. And every time you get banned you need to create a new account with new KYC etc.
Third of all, bots play differently from humans and many of them are detected and caught by the players in addition to the site security. Further adding to the challenge is that the community of professional online players in the US is pretty small and everyone pretty much knows everyone else (we're all on Discord together, basically). So new names appearing at high stakes out of nowhere get scrutinized more.
Fourth, even if you're playing against a bot or cheater, you can still make money, since winrate is entirely driven by fish. You might lose a little against the cheater but as long as you're winning far more from the fish you'll still make money. This separates poker from other competitive games.
I don't mean to imply the bot and cheating issues don't exist, they're real and serious and existential, and every online pro these days spends a lot of time worrying about it, worrying if a certain opponent is cheating, etc. But I think the bigger issues facing online poker are actually regulatory (in the US, an unregulated market has sprung up since the pandemic that is now struggling with a lot of legal changes; Europe has a lot of anti gambling laws these days and more every year) as well as general game quality (fewer recreational players wanting to gamble large amounts of money online and more pros than ever trying to split that smaller pie).
My current team at my current company (see bio if you're really interested), though I should say I'm not authorized to speak on behalf of my employer, so I should really say something more like "I".
Myopic and ill informed.
> A 2017 study in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics estimated that "the transition into DST caused over 30 deaths at a social cost of $275 million annually", primarily by increasing sleep deprivation.[128]
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time, Effects on Health section. That section mentions many more negative effects of DST.
reply