In Białystok, Poland, solar noon is at 11:39.
In Vigo, Spain, it's at 13:46, .
Being in favor of all-year DST (more sun in the evening is just nice), nice to see that those lucky Spaniards already have it and then some.
Whatever the preference for the permanent time, abandoning the switching should be advocated by the software industry. I've yet to work at a company where there are no bugs related to switching the clock. Those bugs have ranged from harmless to pretty severe.
That sounds like an unnecessary EU standardization. Having the same timezone in Poland and Spain possibly made sense 30 years ago, but now that all communication goes through computers of one kind or another, time conversion is seamless.
For those companies that have offices in both countries, and for which the synchronicity matters, it is not that difficult to just have special office hours.
> [The same timezone in Poland and Spain] sounds like an unnecessary EU standardization.
Well, if you look up the histories of the time zones in the respective countries ("Time in Poland" and "Time in Spain" on Wikipedia, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy) you'll see that both settled on CET, with or without daylight savings, long before the EU was even an idea.
TCL/Tk too, albeit being far less intuitive than Lazarus+FreePascal. Altough it has far less code, so it's a draw on difficulty. The average Joe would just spend time measuring the sizes of the frames and that's it.
spot dog is hydraulically powered junk, unitree is motor driven from day one. Boston Dynamics was forced to switch to a motor driven architecture after it is proven by unitree.
Perhaps because of the potentially slower actuation speed, but you also generally get a lot more power from hydraulics so im not sure one can claim it is junk. Far less acrobatic, but also far more sumo wrestler.
My favorite: near the Bering strait you can see the distortion of the map - obviously ships go in straight lines on a sphere but in a curve on the map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
reply