BlueSoxSWJ

It was first implemented in Germany to conserve energy during World War One by aligning people's active hours better with the daylight hours. By the end of World War One, almost every country involved had implemented it, though most repealed it after the war eased rationing needs. It was then reimplemented almost worldwide during World War Two rationing, and re-repealed again afterwards. The modern DST practice mostly dates to the oil shocks of the 1970s, though the U.S. expanded it in 2005. Simplifying a lot here, but urban areas usually want DST, since they're more likely to schedule their daily lives by the official time, and rural areas generally don't want it, since they usually schedule their daily lives around daylight, and the disruption of DST can be a significant hassle. In fact, prior to the 1970s, official time was set locally, and almost every city used DST while most rural areas didn't. The rise of AC means that DST doesn't save much energy anymore (the hours that people are awake are now hotter on average, so more AC is used even as less lighting is used), but it has one rather major impact: by aligning our commutes with daylight better, DST reduces traffic fatalities by a significant amount, with some studies pegging the number as high as 10% for pedestrians. As for breaking down other things, I've long been in favor of 10 day weeks, with 3 per month, then a 5 or 6 day fill period to complete the year. Days 1, 6, and 10 would be "weekends," so a workweek would be 4 on, 1 off, 3 on, 2 off. This would make 70% of days weekdays, compared to 71.4% now, not including the fill period. Of course, the truth us, nothing is ever going to drastically change - the thorough globalization of markets means that we're pretty much stuck with the basics of what we have. (Fun fact: after World War One, the U.K. kept DST, so even when the U.S. repealed it in 1919, New York City alone kept it just to keep the relative trading hours between the NYSE and the London Stock Exchange constant.)

Alas, not a well-sourced article. The study it used to claim that Daylight Saving Time (Saving does not have an s on the end of it!) has "minimal" impact overall was actually a study showing that in one year, in California, the three-week extension of Daylight Saving Time had a small impact on energy use. It points out that there's a jump in the heart attack rate when DST starts, but neglects to mention that there's a bigger drop in motor vehicle fatalities from the evening rush hour being pushed into daylight faster. More broad studies of DST as a whole suggest that southern states don't really benefit (lighting use drops, but people are awake during hotter hours, so AC use rises), while northern states strongly benefit (lighting savings far outweigh AC use increase).

I mean, the weather is always going to highlight recency bias and availability bias (specifically, even with the internet, local weather/news is more available than worldwide news/weather). We used to joke in my fraternity that because of the rapid turnover (2 1/2 years from pledging to graduation), anything that happened for back to back years became "the way it's always been done." The fact is, even outside of a rapid turnover environment like a fraternity, it doesn't take a very long stretch for something to become "the way it's always been."

Anonymous sources in team front offices have suggested that this speech could drop Page's draft stock by as much as a full round in the upcoming draft.

Late this this, but I've come to strongly dislike Moffat as lead writer. "Blink" was brilliant, one of the best hours of television ever made. But I'll put my issues with Moffat in spoilers because it's going to contain a lot of them.

Is this a good place for some Unnecessary Censorship?

Two outs in the ninth - look how many cameras were out to record it, and that was taken before the pitch!

This one is rather misleading. The NFL, at the league level, is a non-profit because all profits go to the teams. Each team is a unique legal entity, and taxes on profits are paid on the team level instead of the league level.

1. W_L 6/8, 3/4, 1/2, 0 gone (wins if Chicago wins, otherwise finishes 2nd) 2. TetRefine 5/8, 3/4, 1/2, 0 gone (wins if Boston wins, otherwise finishes 3rd) 3. Krista 5/8, 2/4, 1/2, 0 gone, eliminated (finishes 2nd if Chicago wins, ties for 3rd if Boston wins) 3. wildone 5/8, 2/4, 1/2, 0/1, eliminated (finishes 4th if Chicago wins, ties for 3rd if Boston wins) 5. Mark Arbour 5/8, 2/4, 0/2, 0/1, clinched 5th place 6. BlueSoxSWJ 3/8, 2/4, 0/2, 0/1, clinched last place

More shame on half of the entrants for misspelling Pittsburgh. W_L 6/8, 3/4, 0 gone, 0 gone (wins if Chicago wins OR LA beats Pittsburgh) TetRefine 5/8, 3/4, 1 gone, 0 gone (wins if Boston wins OR LA beats Boston) wildone 5/8, 2/4, 0 gone, 0 gone (wins if Pittsburgh wins) Krista 5/8, 2/4, 0 gone, 0 gone, eliminated Mark Arbour 5/8, 2/4, 1 gone, 1 gone, eliminated BlueSoxSWJ 3/8, 2/4, 2 gone, 1 gone, clinched last place Results are not dependent on whether we use 1-2-3-4 points per round or 1-2-4-8.

Aside from a potential home-ice determination in the finals, I don't really care about the Western Conference games, so I generally just root for good hockey and close games.