Yes, it's going to cause a lot of confusion and missed meetings. At the moment everyone says "pacific time", but now that will mean two different things.
I think we'll need to say Vancouver time or California time.
In my professional experience, having needed to work with relatively unsophisticated people across many time zones, the only thing that worked consistently was "[City] time". That way people could always check 'what time is it in X now' or 'when it's X in [City], what time is it here', and get correct responses.
Descriptors like "Mountain time" are too vague, especially when there are various places that do/do not practice DST within that timezone, or there are similarly named time zones internationally. (Australia has Eastern and Central time too, for example, and in summer - which is northern hemisphere winter - they split into four different time zones due to varying DST practices.)
Trying to be overly clever and exactly specify the time zone, e.g. "MDT", leads to lots of subtle mistakes in my experience. Often people will think they know what that is, and then get it wrong. Or their calendar app will helpfully suggest MST and they'll click on it, not noticing the difference. Or they'll just scramble the letters when writing them down and wind up with "NTT time" or "AT&T time" or some such.
EST is Eastern Standard Time. Most of Europe is on CET or CEST depending on time of year. (Somewhat confusingly, the 'S' in that case refers to Summer rather than Standard!)
Mountain time is ambiguous due to Arizona, and yet we still use that phrase. Hawaii-Aleutian time is also ambiguous: the Aleutian islands do daylight savings, but Hawaii doesn't.
Casual speech doesn't use the city names (like America/Los_Angeles for pacific time); presumably we'd have Pacific time (America/Los_Angeles) and BC time (an update of the existing America/Vancouver). If Washington's time change ever gets approved it would presumably become simply Washington time (America/Seattle maybe?).
I feel that it really just gives an explanation of decoherence, but doesnt offer any testable hypothesis for darwinian pruning and collapse to pointer states.
However, it still doesn't really address the core question of when the collapse actually occurs. All it really seems to add is that the environment is an "observer" and that decoherence actually causes the collapse.
It's both an opportunity and a curse. When I was younger I wrote 3d games in raw assembly language, and created my own language and VM. Today you can now do all of that entirely with AI. It's a huge time saver and will result in greater productivity. However, in order to maintain and build strong cognitive skills, you need to engage in challenging problems and learning.
The drive to solve complex problems and build new and fancy things will always be there, and there will always be a subset of people who will leverage the technology to build even bigger and better things than was possible for our generation. So those people will benefit (and possibly get very rich). The technology will likely raise up everyone's productivity and living standards, although those who don't flex their cognitive abilities might find they suffer more chronic health problems later in life.
Looks like the paper hasn't been published yet, so there isn't really much detail, including blinding effectiveness (which is typically a problem for psychedelics).
Its only unproven until you spend 2 seconds opening your browser network tools, and youll see it ddosing gyrovague.com from your browser the entire time the capthca is visible.
I think we'll need to say Vancouver time or California time.
reply