Except you're not going to be more productive working those additional hours in the summer, so as unless you're willing to take the respective pay cut for working less hours, this proposal is a non-starter. Personally, I'd argue that more (smaller e.g. 15 minute) shifts would be better (and you could more closely track sunrise), and avoid the hard shift which it feels is the main complaint people have with switching timezone.
It's a non-starter in your mind, because you have already accepted that businesses get to dictate it be so, and that instead we must pass laws (e.g. daylight savings) to govern all people to conform to their wishes.
We can also let people dictate that it will be my/another way, and pass laws to govern businesses instead.
And it's wild that so many people nowadays don't seem to realize this is perfectly normal and expected.
We didn't used to have 5-day workweeks. Or 8 hour days as the norm. Or worker's comp. etc etc etc etc...
Absent either strong unions (or similar bargaining capability) or laws, businesses (and employers more generally) do get to dictate the terms of employment. The gig economy is an excellent example of it, no 40-hour work weeks there (which to be clear, I think is a bad thing, we need stronger employment laws). Furthermore, when bargaining you need to work out your aims, what conditions you are willing to trade off. By far the simplest way to reduce your hours is to take a pay cut (and similarly, to reduce the number of days with the same pay is to work more hours per day), so again, unless you want a pay cut, I don't see where the less hours in winter come from (I'm not located somewhere it snows, but maybe you could do a hybrid WFH where you left early to ensure your commute was in daylight and argue that it's a WHS improvement)?
Exactly, time zones exist (and have always existed, they only appeared once you needed to coordinate time across different places) as a coordination mechanism. Who and what you need to align with (e.g. where you sit on the international date line, your latitude and longitude for the solar phase) is the important part, not the actual number that appears on the clock (or on someone else's clock for that matter).
Unless you only use what's in the "main" section (which is surprising small, far more things are in "universe" than you'd expect), then you are getting the same software (or sometimes even older) than Debian.
Except Thunderbird now does run on donations (though is looking a relevant additional funding sources, e.g. providing hosted email: https://www.tb.pro/en-US/). This is not to say Mozilla can't seek out other sources of money, or develop appropriate ancillary services, but the absence of an option to just give money for Firefox (and Firefox only) is noticeable.
I really want you to stop and think about what you're saying for a second. I just made the point that the strongest online fundraising operation in the world, Wikipedia, gets less than half of what it takes to fund Firefox. Your counterpoint to that is to point to Thunderbird, which raises significantly less money than Wikipedia, which is already not enough to fun Firefox, in order to prove that it's plausible that the full operations of Firefox could be funded.
This would be the point where Logan Roy says you're not serious people.
And killed its add-on ecosystem. If the choice is between (as it was then) a slower browser missing the add-ons you were used to, and a faster browser missing the add-ons you were used to, then you're going to need some other motivation to stick with (as I did, to be clear) the slower browser.
1. Pocket was an external company, which Mozilla bought (and claimed they would open source), which already had a web extension. There was no need for the pre-acquisition integration, or to buy it later on.
2. After buying it, Mozilla did nothing with it, including failing to open source it, and seemingly failed to get enough revenue from that they shut it down last year.
This saga provided no benefit to Firefox users who did not use pocket, and at best for pocket users left them with a dying solution that they would need to migrate from (given the failure to open source it). It's not clear how much Mozilla paid for Pocket, but those funds could have been spent on something more valuable.
reply