Where I am, it's light out from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. during the shortest days of the winter. The thing is a lot of people aren't even awake at 7 a.m. and if they are (I am), they're doing indoor things like making breakfast/showering/etc. So for a lot of people, that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted. In the afternoon though, everyone can take advantage of the daylight.
I wonder what the actual percentages are. It's probably a thing where each group can't believe that there's a significant number of people in the other.
"that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted."
Only for people who wake up late. There could also be benefits to aligning one's circadian rhythm to morning light.
Go out and watch the highways at 7:30AM. They're packed. Most people start work at 8AM. Which means they're probably on the road by 7:30 and probably awake by 6:30.
Thanks! A lot of people here I assume can make their own hours more or less, don't have kids, and sleep until 8AM or so. But the vast majority of people have to be to a workplace by 8AM and wake up at 6AM so they can get themselves and their kids ready. They don't want 2.5 hours of darkness in the morning. Some light before and after work is ideal.
Neither option is great. Permanent standard time might be better, although I assume blackout curtains will be popular with twilight starting around 4am in the summer. There's really not going to be light both before and after work in the winter for many places. Current twilight is about 630am now, so it would be more like 1.5 hours, not 2.5.
FYI, I've taken 10mg Xanax during a trip that wasn't going well and it did literally nothing. Normally, 0.5mg would put me to sleep. Seroquel (Quetiapine), on the other hand, does work if you want an escape hatch and don't mind being sedated.
That's fair. People with needs outside of the current financial system, like paying for drugs or murderers or illegal pornography might enjoy using cryptocurrency. Let's keep just one cryptocurrency for that and stop talking about Web3, then.
And the novel technology to create novel viruses was being actively developed in this lab. They've proudly and openly published results to this effect. Further, they were trying to get tens of millions in grant funding to develop the technology further.
> The WSJ author had brought us other CIA-approved gems about WMDs in Iraq once upon a time.
In case other people besides myself were confused, we're apparently talking about Michael Gordon, and this WSJ article [0], not this one [1]. Michael Gordon also wrote [2], which reported on the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.
It's actually this exact attitude that kept it out of the media. I'm curious: what is your goal? Everyone can see the glaringly obvious circumstantial evidence that it was a lab leak. At this point, comments like your's just look ridiculous.
Oh, so vulnerable and fragile media decided to spin a ridiculous narrative because of stupid comments on the internet? Maybe the media should grow up and stop acting like a stereotypical 13 year old girl.
