I’m sure there’s numerous potential reasons for it. Some may be relying on the consistency of their sleep schedule more than others, have responsibilities that reduce how much they can reasonably fit in their schedule, may not care about the quantity or quality of sleep they get, have a pre-existing sleep debt, have health issues that compound with sleep changes, alternative sleep schedules, genetic predispositions, or literally anything else related to how sleep, physical health, mental health, and bodily systems function.

If you think of how one thing being shifted can set other things way more off balance then it makes sense. I’m not an expert in any of this but it’s definitely a complicated topic at the very least.

I think most people are more willing to be apathetic than energized if they accept that their choices amount to little to no change.

This is actually incorrect. If you check the birthdate Pull Request changelog and compare with the actual files, all of those changes are still in place. The decision to revert was rejected by ‘poettering’ here.

I’d agree with you, except that it’s clear that the political systems we live under are flawed/non-functional. Non-compliance may be our next best shot at stopping these laws from getting any more traction.

It’s clear to me with the stance that the dev that closed the revert pull request that they aren’t willing to form any resistance to these types of changes. Actually, the revert pull request stated that their request was due to a number of people discussing the matter and they ultimately decided that there could be harm inflicted, yet the dev ‘poettering’ decided to supercede this decision. Not only is this the first crack in a hold-the-line situation with other major FOSS projects refusing to make the change but also shows their hand at how they stance themselves politically.

I was literally just thinking this right before reading your comment. There is no justification for this implementation outside of controlling and tracking your citizens.

Also, it’s nearly impossible to implement how they want since IOT devices exist so it doesn’t really make any sense as ruled.

I understand why you might think that’s best as a cultural more but I ultimately disagree with that stance since it is likely to lead to alienation and less understanding as a whole. Being open to outside perspectives and even constructive criticism from both parties is the best way finding mutual understanding.

This is actually supported by GrapheneOS currently, if you need that extra push. 😉

Not to mention that the flames while combusing are invisible by sight. It’s also really difficult to keep contained and if it leaks it has ~11x the impact of CO2 per this article.

I used to like the idea of hydrogen as an energy medium but all of its attributes combined just make it really infeasible to use except for immediate applications.

Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn’t say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it’s difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.

I think your first point contradicts your second.

I’m sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.