Why ??!!...The whinging,moaning,complaining,ranting,letting off steam thread !!

1515254565794

Comments

  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    I saw that he compared his ambitions for Twitter to WeChat in China, which apparently is used for practically everything...
  • Posts: 15,218
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    @Dragonpol really seems to be the authority on this, but my view as a lapsed political scientist is that basically we (as in the established liberal democracies of the world) have kind of come to the conclusion that while we need a strictly codified system of taking election results and making a government out of it as a backup, it doesn't matter 99,9% of the time. Most of the time it involves a Head of State calling on someone to form a government, in other cases it's more just parliament coming together and voting for someone or some group. Whatever the technical case may be, the vast majority of the time, we know pretty well who the Head of Government will be pretty quickly after the election and then nobody tries to litigate through all the constitutional conventions, because it's a moot point. One party or person has the support of the electorate, so they should lead. Whether that then is done through a King telling them to, a President inviting them to, or them being the first to pray to the holy pineapple (honestly, not that far off from some of the stuff in the UK) doesn't strictly matter.

    The problem - and the really concerning stuff - is that of course many of the "established liberal democracies" aren't all that established anymore and feel less and less liberal or - as we are kind of discussing - like democracies. The whole thing I wrote out above obviously did not work at all in the US last year (and to a different degree in 2000) and with the stalwart Queen Elizabeth II gone and one party seemingly just being able to nominate one clown after the other for Prime Minister without any input from the people, the always precarious constitutional situation in the UK is taking quite a few knocks as well. And then we suddenly find ourselves in situations where you more and more have to think about where power really lies and not what we have long established and held as theatrical version of conveying power.
    At a very base form, politics describes the way we organize power in a community of people. Over time, we have gotten used to a lot of inherent assumptions. This person (policeman, lady in some local government department that makes decisions, politicians, judges and so on) has power over me, because that is the way it works. We all roughly believe in the system and we believe if there is a gross injustice, we can either call on a higher authority or through that higher authority out of office by vote. That believe is dying and we are more and more getting back to in-person power i.e. violence.

    As far as I know there's only one true democracy in the world, and that's Switserland. Any country that has any form of layering, of some sort of 'protection' against 'the craze of the day' is actually doing the opposite of what it intends to do, as such functions are filled by humans who are just as fallible as the rest of humanity. Take the electoral college. In the 2016 elections there were the highest amount of not-votes-for-their-candidate ever: most of them were democrats not voting for Hilary. Not that it made any difference, but usually a craze is followed by a loud minority. If you then make the amount of people that have to decide smaller, you automatically make it less democratic and more susceptible to crazes. We have the same within political parties, as do the Brits as has been clearly shown the last few days.

    Again, yes and no.
    There are two cantons (think counties, but due to Switzerland being pretty small, this is the organizational level below the national level) in Switzerland that have classic direct democracy. Meaning, they don't have a parliament, but once a year all the citizens come together on a big square and decide on stuff. There is a kind of organizing committee and an executive, but the Landesgemeinde is where it really happens. The other 24 cantons don't have this anymore. Additionally, any law the national parliament passes including the constitution can be abolished or amended by citizens' initiative and then a national vote. That's what people generally point towards when they talk about Switzerland being a direct democracy.
    On the other hand, Switzerland has a very unique system of governments and how they are created. The Swiss "Head of State" is not a person, but a council of seven people (one is technically the President, but that only means they have to go to more official functions. They don't have any more power than the other six) and these seven people have come from basically the same four parties since 1959 and seats are apportioned according to a "magic formula". Furthermore, there usually are no elections fought for the seats on this council and someone is usually only replaced when they resign. When the balance of power between parties shifted in 2003 they changed the formula slightly, but still the outcome of national elections has little to no bearing on the composition of the government. Imagine, no matter what a UK General Election's outcome was, the cabinet would be made up by two Tories, two people from the Labour party, one from the SNP, one from the Liberal Democrats and one from the Greens.
    And then it's all an attempt at balancing these things. The government generally tries to find a consensus approach and then citizens can bowl all that over, if enough of them think the consensus is bad.

    Thanks for the explanation! Well, to me it sounds like a very stable system where everybody has a vote and, as you said, the people can overrule their government at any time. I think that's very important and you don't see that in many places. Here in the Netherlands, i.e. they voted the corrective referendum away after the first one didn't have the results they expected. Suddenly it was all about 'the people don't understand' and 'it's beeing hijacked by populists'.

    Pity the other Cantons gave up on it, I still believe that's the way to go.

    A pretty simple adage is that politics is made by those who show up. And one of the problems of the Landgemeinde system where everyone comes together in a big square to vote on things is that not everyone can go to that thing, but people with extreme positions usually do. So do you want to address that or is everyone just ok with that? That’s why we came up with representative democracy. Not everything in a nation can be debated and decided on a day and not everyone can be around all the time. So we send people to do that for us.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    Who wrote the James Bond books?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    Who wrote the James Bond books?

    "There are James Bond books?" - A female co-worker back in 2012. Still one of the most cretinous things anyone has ever said to me.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    Who wrote the James Bond books?

    "There are James Bond books?" - A female co-worker back in 2012. Still one of the most cretinous things anyone has ever said to me.

    Did you tell her there was as many as seven?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    Who wrote the James Bond books?

    "There are James Bond books?" - A female co-worker back in 2012. Still one of the most cretinous things anyone has ever said to me.

    Did you tell her there was as many as seven?

    Pierce Brosnan can't be wrong.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,298
    @Dragonpol really seems to be the authority on this, but my view as a lapsed political scientist is that basically we (as in the established liberal democracies of the world) have kind of come to the conclusion that while we need a strictly codified system of taking election results and making a government out of it as a backup, it doesn't matter 99,9% of the time. Most of the time it involves a Head of State calling on someone to form a government, in other cases it's more just parliament coming together and voting for someone or some group. Whatever the technical case may be, the vast majority of the time, we know pretty well who the Head of Government will be pretty quickly after the election and then nobody tries to litigate through all the constitutional conventions, because it's a moot point. One party or person has the support of the electorate, so they should lead. Whether that then is done through a King telling them to, a President inviting them to, or them being the first to pray to the holy pineapple (honestly, not that far off from some of the stuff in the UK) doesn't strictly matter.

    The problem - and the really concerning stuff - is that of course many of the "established liberal democracies" aren't all that established anymore and feel less and less liberal or - as we are kind of discussing - like democracies. The whole thing I wrote out above obviously did not work at all in the US last year (and to a different degree in 2000) and with the stalwart Queen Elizabeth II gone and one party seemingly just being able to nominate one clown after the other for Prime Minister without any input from the people, the always precarious constitutional situation in the UK is taking quite a few knocks as well. And then we suddenly find ourselves in situations where you more and more have to think about where power really lies and not what we have long established and held as theatrical version of conveying power.
    At a very base form, politics describes the way we organize power in a community of people. Over time, we have gotten used to a lot of inherent assumptions. This person (policeman, lady in some local government department that makes decisions, politicians, judges and so on) has power over me, because that is the way it works. We all roughly believe in the system and we believe if there is a gross injustice, we can either call on a higher authority or through that higher authority out of office by vote. That believe is dying and we are more and more getting back to in-person power i.e. violence.

    As far as I know there's only one true democracy in the world, and that's Switserland. Any country that has any form of layering, of some sort of 'protection' against 'the craze of the day' is actually doing the opposite of what it intends to do, as such functions are filled by humans who are just as fallible as the rest of humanity. Take the electoral college. In the 2016 elections there were the highest amount of not-votes-for-their-candidate ever: most of them were democrats not voting for Hilary. Not that it made any difference, but usually a craze is followed by a loud minority. If you then make the amount of people that have to decide smaller, you automatically make it less democratic and more susceptible to crazes. We have the same within political parties, as do the Brits as has been clearly shown the last few days.

    Again, yes and no.
    There are two cantons (think counties, but due to Switzerland being pretty small, this is the organizational level below the national level) in Switzerland that have classic direct democracy. Meaning, they don't have a parliament, but once a year all the citizens come together on a big square and decide on stuff. There is a kind of organizing committee and an executive, but the Landesgemeinde is where it really happens. The other 24 cantons don't have this anymore. Additionally, any law the national parliament passes including the constitution can be abolished or amended by citizens' initiative and then a national vote. That's what people generally point towards when they talk about Switzerland being a direct democracy.
    On the other hand, Switzerland has a very unique system of governments and how they are created. The Swiss "Head of State" is not a person, but a council of seven people (one is technically the President, but that only means they have to go to more official functions. They don't have any more power than the other six) and these seven people have come from basically the same four parties since 1959 and seats are apportioned according to a "magic formula". Furthermore, there usually are no elections fought for the seats on this council and someone is usually only replaced when they resign. When the balance of power between parties shifted in 2003 they changed the formula slightly, but still the outcome of national elections has little to no bearing on the composition of the government. Imagine, no matter what a UK General Election's outcome was, the cabinet would be made up by two Tories, two people from the Labour party, one from the SNP, one from the Liberal Democrats and one from the Greens.
    And then it's all an attempt at balancing these things. The government generally tries to find a consensus approach and then citizens can bowl all that over, if enough of them think the consensus is bad.

    Thanks for the explanation! Well, to me it sounds like a very stable system where everybody has a vote and, as you said, the people can overrule their government at any time. I think that's very important and you don't see that in many places. Here in the Netherlands, i.e. they voted the corrective referendum away after the first one didn't have the results they expected. Suddenly it was all about 'the people don't understand' and 'it's beeing hijacked by populists'.

    Pity the other Cantons gave up on it, I still believe that's the way to go.

    A pretty simple adage is that politics is made by those who show up. And one of the problems of the Landgemeinde system where everyone comes together in a big square to vote on things is that not everyone can go to that thing, but people with extreme positions usually do. So do you want to address that or is everyone just ok with that? That’s why we came up with representative democracy. Not everything in a nation can be debated and decided on a day and not everyone can be around all the time. So we send people to do that for us.

    And those politicians have their own interests at heart, not those of the ones they represent. On the contrary, when they find eachother - which they do to forge aliances- the incentives are even stronger to be beneficiary to themselves and their peers (no matter the party) and less so to those whom elected them. With direct democracy, the majority will always be of the moderate kind. The smaller the 'community of power', the more radical, with the epitomy in a dictator who by defenition becomes extreme, as he has no checks and balances.
  • Posts: 15,218
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    I was half paying attention when she asked as the questions were quite out there. It was who saved the king or duke of somewhere (Bohemia?) in 1939. I thought I heard 1919 so my answer was way off.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    I was half paying attention when she asked as the questions were quite out there. It was who saved the king or duke of somewhere (Bohemia?) in 1939. I thought I heard 1919 so my answer was way off.

    Ah, that's quite a tricky one. I know that Fleming personally oversaw the evacuation of people from France to Britain when it was clear it was about to fall to the Germans in 1940. One of the people he helped evacuate was King Zog of Albania.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,073
    I'm sick and tired of people regularly complaining about the change to summer time (for the US: daylight saving time) in March and back in October (like this weekend). I love it when (seemingly, I know) the evenings get longer so you can sit outside endlessly in summer. I don't have any need for daylight before 4 a.m. (actually, even before 8 a.m.). Of course time has to be turned back in fall because no-one wants to send children to school in the dark even if it is nine a.m. I hate this sudden change when it gets dark at 5 p.m. or earlier, but that's the price for enjoying the other seven months more.

    I'm especially unfond of those who keep complaining that the EU hasn't changed this because of a supposed poll that only the freak critics knew about (I, for one, didn't until it was over) and cared about, as is the usual case with referendums etc. I understand that the enormous number of about 4 million EU citizens (less than one percent of them all) even responded, 80 per cent of which were German hypochondriacs. Nobody else anywhere seemed to have a sizable problem. And why should they, when a short "jet lag" comes with every holiday flight into a different time zone.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I'm sick and tired of people regularly complaining about the change to summer time (for the US: daylight saving time) in March and back in October (like this weekend). I love it when (seemingly, I know) the evenings get longer so you can sit outside endlessly in summer. I don't have any need for daylight before 4 a.m. (actually, even before 8 a.m.). Of course time has to be turned back in fall because no-one wants to send children to school in the dark even if it is nine a.m. I hate this sudden change when it gets dark at 5 p.m. or earlier, but that's the price for enjoying the other seven months more.

    I'm especially unfond of those who keep complaining that the EU hasn't changed this because of a supposed poll that only the freak critics knew about (I, for one, didn't until it was over) and cared about, as is the usual case with referendums etc. I understand that the enormous number of about 4 million EU citizens (less than one percent of them all) even responded, 80 per cent of which were German hypochondriacs. Nobody else anywhere seemed to have a sizable problem. And why should they, when a short "jet lag" comes with every holiday flight into a different time zone.

    I am with you on this, mate. Pointless and needless complaining, when our priorities should be lying somewhere else.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited October 2022 Posts: 7,588
    I've never seen an argument in favour of daylight savings before. :)) First time for everything!

    The days get shorter (and the evenings longer) in the fall, and you can sit out as long as you like, regardless of what the clocks say!

    I'm not a frequent vocal complainer about having to switch the clocks around for daylight savings time, but it does need to end.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    I have noticed over the years that the arguments for and against Daylight Savings Time seem to crop up in The Times newspaper (and no doubt other media) in opinion pieces and the letters page. I remember reading a letter someone had written in to the newspaper where they made the point that some tweaks to the current current laws that govern Daylight Savings Time would greatly improve things and give the optimum amount of light all year round. I can't remember what this fix was but it did all sound quite logical. I think like a lot of things of this nature we're rather stuck in a rut on them (or stuck in the mud even) and because we've been changing our clocks twice yearly for a hundred years now we just continue to do it. The laws were brought in during World War I in order to give factory workers more light when they came home from their long shifts so they could probably do with being reviewed again. However, like the debate around setting a fixed date for Easter (see the never implemented Easter Act 1928) it is one of these perennial things debated in Parliament without any changes to the legislation that governs it ultimately being made. I suppose, as others have noted above, there are much more important things to be worrying about with the way that the world is at the minute.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,154
    I'd keep the clocks on Greenwich Mean Time all year round. I hate the long, light nights of summer - I'll take the short days and early sunsets of autumn and winter, every time. British Summer Time can never end quickly enough for me.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,662
    No one complains about daylight savings in my neck of the woods. I enjoy driving to work in the dark and sunsets at 9pm.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    As a science teacher, I constantly try to keep myself updated and better informed. It makes sense that I spend a significant amount of time online trying to find the best sources possible for new scientific insights. In my pursuit of knowledge, I am often directed towards websites that offer recent publications... at a considerable cost! And that's just wrong.

    Science prides itself on its transparency and open-access attitude towards anyone interested in its endeavours. Articles that can teach us new things should never, no matter how costly the preceding research was, be paid for. This practice shows that the worst side of human nature has invaded one of its proudest achievements. I hate it when ScienceDirect and other websites demand a lot of money for what should essentially be free for all. It's disgusting even.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    Scientists have to make money. I suppose the alternative is to make their work freely accessible and have them paid by the government which would result in higher taxes, which would be my pick, but would result in a hell of a lot more complaining.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    I'm back! After a strong storm (signal no.3) with a long power interruption!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    Scientists have to make money. I suppose the alternative is to make their work freely accessible and have them paid by the government which would result in higher taxes, which would be my pick, but would result in a hell of a lot more complaining.

    Researchers normally do get paid for their work. And I agree, people would complain if more tax money were spent on science. That, in itself, is problematic too. It is still the best thing to invest in. But I'm biased, I know. ;-)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,298
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    I'm sick and tired of people regularly complaining about the change to summer time (for the US: daylight saving time) in March and back in October (like this weekend). I love it when (seemingly, I know) the evenings get longer so you can sit outside endlessly in summer. I don't have any need for daylight before 4 a.m. (actually, even before 8 a.m.). Of course time has to be turned back in fall because no-one wants to send children to school in the dark even if it is nine a.m. I hate this sudden change when it gets dark at 5 p.m. or earlier, but that's the price for enjoying the other seven months more.

    I'm especially unfond of those who keep complaining that the EU hasn't changed this because of a supposed poll that only the freak critics knew about (I, for one, didn't until it was over) and cared about, as is the usual case with referendums etc. I understand that the enormous number of about 4 million EU citizens (less than one percent of them all) even responded, 80 per cent of which were German hypochondriacs. Nobody else anywhere seemed to have a sizable problem. And why should they, when a short "jet lag" comes with every holiday flight into a different time zone.

    I am with you on this, mate. Pointless and needless complaining, when our priorities should be lying somewhere else.

    I'll talk to you next year when the little one has just found a good rithm for waking up/sleeping that fits your day-scheme, only for it to be reset an hour for... what? half an hour of more 'light' in the evening that loses its value after three days because you have to go to work and back in the dark anyway? On average there's nothing to enjoy anyway as winters are rainy and dark by definition.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,073
    Small children don't sleep by the clock. The only problem is that the world outside (for the parents, I guess) resets, and those parents have to be at their workplace an hour earlier/an hour later than before, whichever applies. Likewise, my opinion on this is that yes, I could stay outside for as long as it is comfortable in spring/summer/early autumn either way, but if the rest of the world works on standard time, it means that I'd have to get up an hour earlier to be on time at my office, and that definitely spoils much of the fun.

    For me, this is a problem of the past (having retired), but that's what has mainly shaped my opinion on this. I never experienced summer/daylight savings time until my exchange year in the US (48 years ago), and never missed having it, but ever since it was introduced in the EU about 1980, I have enjoyed it. And today, I'm disappointed that after a wonderful, much-too-warm autumn day the sun was essentially gone at 3 p.m., and it was dark around five.

    I'm thoroughly looking forward to the last weekend of March 2023.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,298
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Small children don't sleep by the clock. The only problem is that the world outside (for the parents, I guess) resets, and those parents have to be at their workplace an hour earlier/an hour later than before, whichever applies. Likewise, my opinion on this is that yes, I could stay outside for as long as it is comfortable in spring/summer/early autumn either way, but if the rest of the world works on standard time, it means that I'd have to get up an hour earlier to be on time at my office, and that definitely spoils much of the fun.

    For me, this is a problem of the past (having retired), but that's what has mainly shaped my opinion on this. I never experienced summer/daylight savings time until my exchange year in the US (48 years ago), and never missed having it, but ever since it was introduced in the EU about 1980, I have enjoyed it. And today, I'm disappointed that after a wonderful, much-too-warm autumn day the sun was essentially gone at 3 p.m., and it was dark around five.

    I'm thoroughly looking forward to the last weekend of March 2023.

    So, what you're basically saying is that you don't want to change your rithm of the day compared to the working day, so that young children have to adjust their rithm twice a year. Indeed, they don't follow the clock, they follow their rithm, so when the world around them changes the clock, suddenly they neet to change their rithm and for some (and their parents) that is quite difficult. Even though our 4y/o is used to travelling, changing his rithm is always quite difficult. He can stay up late/wake up early for one day, but will return to his normal rithm the next day. So, the coming few days, maybe even weeks, he's going to get up at 5, not 6 am, and will need to go to bed at 6 pm instead of 7. Keeping him awake until 7 will just exhaust him and make it far more difficult to get him to go to bed, as he'll start jumping around when he's too tired to sleep...

    I'm not trying to blame here, just stating the situation. For (most) grown-ups it's not too difficult to change, for kids it's a completely different story.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,588
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Scientists have to make money. I suppose the alternative is to make their work freely accessible and have them paid by the government which would result in higher taxes, which would be my pick, but would result in a hell of a lot more complaining.

    Researchers normally do get paid for their work. And I agree, people would complain if more tax money were spent on science. That, in itself, is problematic too. It is still the best thing to invest in. But I'm biased, I know. ;-)

    Agreed, science and education. And of course, I'd hope researchers get paid for their work, but surely the sale of these academic papers generates some of that money that goes to researchers? Perhaps I'm naively living in an idealistic world.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,073
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    Small children don't sleep by the clock. The only problem is that the world outside (for the parents, I guess) resets, and those parents have to be at their workplace an hour earlier/an hour later than before, whichever applies. Likewise, my opinion on this is that yes, I could stay outside for as long as it is comfortable in spring/summer/early autumn either way, but if the rest of the world works on standard time, it means that I'd have to get up an hour earlier to be on time at my office, and that definitely spoils much of the fun.

    For me, this is a problem of the past (having retired), but that's what has mainly shaped my opinion on this. I never experienced summer/daylight savings time until my exchange year in the US (48 years ago), and never missed having it, but ever since it was introduced in the EU about 1980, I have enjoyed it. And today, I'm disappointed that after a wonderful, much-too-warm autumn day the sun was essentially gone at 3 p.m., and it was dark around five.

    I'm thoroughly looking forward to the last weekend of March 2023.

    So, what you're basically saying is that you don't want to change your rithm of the day compared to the working day, so that young children have to adjust their rithm twice a year. Indeed, they don't follow the clock, they follow their rithm, so when the world around them changes the clock, suddenly they neet to change their rithm and for some (and their parents) that is quite difficult. Even though our 4y/o is used to travelling, changing his rithm is always quite difficult. He can stay up late/wake up early for one day, but will return to his normal rithm the next day. So, the coming few days, maybe even weeks, he's going to get up at 5, not 6 am, and will need to go to bed at 6 pm instead of 7. Keeping him awake until 7 will just exhaust him and make it far more difficult to get him to go to bed, as he'll start jumping around when he's too tired to sleep...

    I'm not trying to blame here, just stating the situation. For (most) grown-ups it's not too difficult to change, for kids it's a completely different story.

    Wrong...in the sense that I am changing the rhythm of my day, but in a pleasant way (until it goes back at the end of October). But we've had this change for 40-plus years, although not during the first 35-or-so years of my life. I never knew what I missed until then, but once it came up, I enjoyed it.

    And I must admit that while there have always been reports of farmers having trouble with their cows because they had always been milked at 6 a.m. standard time (why don't the dairies adjust their pick-up times by an hour if that's a problem?), the complaint of people having trouble with their babies is new to me. Probably more relevant, but not present for the last forty years of the discussion. Sorry.
  • Posts: 15,218
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    I was half paying attention when she asked as the questions were quite out there. It was who saved the king or duke of somewhere (Bohemia?) in 1939. I thought I heard 1919 so my answer was way off.

    Ah, that's quite a tricky one. I know that Fleming personally oversaw the evacuation of people from France to Britain when it was clear it was about to fall to the Germans in 1940. One of the people he helped evacuate was King Zog of Albania.

    Yes, that was the question: who helped King Zog of Albania escape. I heard 1919 instead of 1939, so of course never thought of Fleming.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Went to Mrs Shelley in the Library with Candlesticks: https://www.facebook.com/marydoesmarlow

    It was really pleasant, although not as spooky as I'd expected. It was very much tongue in cheek. But anyway, I was asked a quizz question which I answered badly. I was gutted: the answer was Ian Fleming.

    Interesting. What was the question?

    I was half paying attention when she asked as the questions were quite out there. It was who saved the king or duke of somewhere (Bohemia?) in 1939. I thought I heard 1919 so my answer was way off.

    Ah, that's quite a tricky one. I know that Fleming personally oversaw the evacuation of people from France to Britain when it was clear it was about to fall to the Germans in 1940. One of the people he helped evacuate was King Zog of Albania.

    Yes, that was the question: who helped King Zog of Albania escape. I heard 1919 instead of 1939, so of course never thought of Fleming.

    Ah, I see. Thought it might've been that. I remember reading about it in Pearson's biography of Fleming.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Scientists have to make money. I suppose the alternative is to make their work freely accessible and have them paid by the government which would result in higher taxes, which would be my pick, but would result in a hell of a lot more complaining.

    Researchers normally do get paid for their work. And I agree, people would complain if more tax money were spent on science. That, in itself, is problematic too. It is still the best thing to invest in. But I'm biased, I know. ;-)

    Agreed, science and education. And of course, I'd hope researchers get paid for their work, but surely the sale of these academic papers generates some of that money that goes to researchers? Perhaps I'm naively living in an idealistic world.

    That's sadly not really how it goes. Although I work in a research insitution, I have never really understood the journal market, but I know that you are much more likely to have to pay to get your findings published rather than getting payed for it. Or at least not by the publisher of these journals. Writing and publishing is part of your job that you are hopefully paid for by an institution, but you are generally not directly paid for articles written or issues of journals sold.
    As far as I know - but this is a semi-educated guess at best - these ridiculous prizes happen, because the main customer for these publishers are university libraries and with time that has created a kind of cartel, parly because the vast majority of end-customers are connected to some library that has a broadband deal with the major publishers and they get free access. So it's the teachers and other people who want to keep informed or do research outside the universities and institutes that are left out in the cold.

    How this is still a thing is beyond me, especially given that most of the editing work is also done by scientists for free (well, for exposure and career advancement but not for direct money payment). Scientists write the article, they review the articles, they put together the issues and special issues, remind their collueagues of deadlines and such and none of that is paid, AFAIK. All the publisher does is putting this stuff in a printable format and then printing and distribution, or more commonly today, digital distribution. Although I suspect their systems to keep people from reading without paying are more expensive than the actual distribution.
    And I also am not aware that scientific publishers do any kind of payment to the institutions that employ the researchers. Again, it's more that the research institution will pay the publisher to get access to the work of their own researchers.

    There has for a long time been an open academia and open access movement that is trying to break this. But if a publisher puts on an open access journal (so no payment or other barriers on the side of the reader), they usually charge people wanting to publish in those a four-figure sum. My small research institute can budget for stuff like that. If you are outside the official system or have bad funding, you can't.

    As a workaround for @DarthDimi, most researchers I know are quite happy to send you a manuscript version of their paper for free if you ask them for it directly or just have it for free on their website. Of course that is a further step that shouldn't be needed, but if there's someone who's work you are really interested in, shoot them an e-mail. Or you could check if any university library around you has a guest reader programme. That often gives access to a lot of online stuff for free or for a small fee.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,249
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Scientists have to make money. I suppose the alternative is to make their work freely accessible and have them paid by the government which would result in higher taxes, which would be my pick, but would result in a hell of a lot more complaining.

    Researchers normally do get paid for their work. And I agree, people would complain if more tax money were spent on science. That, in itself, is problematic too. It is still the best thing to invest in. But I'm biased, I know. ;-)

    Agreed, science and education. And of course, I'd hope researchers get paid for their work, but surely the sale of these academic papers generates some of that money that goes to researchers? Perhaps I'm naively living in an idealistic world.

    That's sadly not really how it goes. Although I work in a research insitution, I have never really understood the journal market, but I know that you are much more likely to have to pay to get your findings published rather than getting payed for it. Or at least not by the publisher of these journals. Writing and publishing is part of your job that you are hopefully paid for by an institution, but you are generally not directly paid for articles written or issues of journals sold.
    As far as I know - but this is a semi-educated guess at best - these ridiculous prizes happen, because the main customer for these publishers are university libraries and with time that has created a kind of cartel, parly because the vast majority of end-customers are connected to some library that has a broadband deal with the major publishers and they get free access. So it's the teachers and other people who want to keep informed or do research outside the universities and institutes that are left out in the cold.

    How this is still a thing is beyond me, especially given that most of the editing work is also done by scientists for free (well, for exposure and career advancement but not for direct money payment). Scientists write the article, they review the articles, they put together the issues and special issues, remind their collueagues of deadlines and such and none of that is paid, AFAIK. All the publisher does is putting this stuff in a printable format and then printing and distribution, or more commonly today, digital distribution. Although I suspect their systems to keep people from reading without paying are more expensive than the actual distribution.
    And I also am not aware that scientific publishers do any kind of payment to the institutions that employ the researchers. Again, it's more that the research institution will pay the publisher to get access to the work of their own researchers.

    There has for a long time been an open academia and open access movement that is trying to break this. But if a publisher puts on an open access journal (so no payment or other barriers on the side of the reader), they usually charge people wanting to publish in those a four-figure sum. My small research institute can budget for stuff like that. If you are outside the official system or have bad funding, you can't.

    As a workaround for @DarthDimi, most researchers I know are quite happy to send you a manuscript version of their paper for free if you ask them for it directly or just have it for free on their website. Of course that is a further step that shouldn't be needed, but if there's someone who's work you are really interested in, shoot them an e-mail. Or you could check if any university library around you has a guest reader programme. That often gives access to a lot of online stuff for free or for a small fee.

    This is a very useful post, @ImpertinentGoon. Thank you.
Sign In or Register to comment.