Wedgie wrote:If we were logical with our climate and did what a lot of other countries did we'd send the click back an hour and do our of our business in the cooler evenings. Doing the opposite and ensuring more of our work is done during the hottest part of the day is just beyond ridiculous.
So drink in the morning and work at night? I like it, bar the drink / driving aspect.
Nah, drink at night, sleep in, work, rinse and repeat. Most pubs are open to 3am, it would be 5am under my plan and they wouldn't bother opening up as early as they do now. It makes sense!
So move our whole working day from let's say 8am-5pm to say 2pm-11pm?
Wedgie wrote:If we were logical with our climate and did what a lot of other countries did we'd send the click back an hour and do our of our business in the cooler evenings. Doing the opposite and ensuring more of our work is done during the hottest part of the day is just beyond ridiculous.
So drink in the morning and work at night? I like it, bar the drink / driving aspect.
Nah, drink at night, sleep in, work, rinse and repeat. Most pubs are open to 3am, it would be 5am under my plan and they wouldn't bother opening up as early as they do now. It makes sense!
So move our whole working day from let's say 8am-5pm to say 2pm-11pm?
I'm not suggesting that extreme but it would make sense. I work 7-3.30. Maybe 10-6.30 instead. Something similar to South East Asian countries would be good. On the other hand I'm willing to compromise and even have half hour of daylight savings all year round and stay on QLD time, at least my body would get used to that after a few years. It never gets used to the current change.
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
HH3 wrote:I prefer finishing early (just ask the Mrs)
I used to do 7.30 - 3.30 and just the extra hour and a half free in the arvo made it feel like I wasn't always at work, like now.
Absolutely. Did 7-3:30 for 8 years, my last 8 have been 8-5. I know what I prefer!
I do 7-5, 4 days a week, have a long weekend every weekend. But in the middle of winter i often think 7-3, 5 days a week would be much better for the reason you guys have outlined. If we had it all year round I wouldnt mind starting in the dark and still getting at least an hour each night of daylight. It goes one month too long, dont mind the early October start
Supercoach Spring Racing Champion 2019 Spargo's Good Friday Cup Champion 2020
I get up for work at 5 or 6 o'clock. It's a billion times easier when it's light. Delaying sunrise for an hour when good citizens like me want to get up for work is absolute lunacy, IMO.
Most people are too tired to do too much after work during the week anyway (and remember in October and March it's not really light after 7.30), and on the weekend, you can do whatever all day if you want, so I just don't see how it's necessary.
Always seemed to me like something which disadvantages working folks.
RB wrote:Always seemed to me like something which disadvantages working folks.
So for 4-6 months if the year us "working folks" who get home and get maybe an hour to an hour and a half daylight are now disadvantaged by the two and a half to three hours we now get during daylight savings?
I'm looking forward to getting a better understanding of how this is a disadvantage. Please, go on.
Spotify put a metal cover version of Adeles "Hello" in my Discover playlist a couple of weeks ago, and now, because that playlist plays all week, they think I enjoy the song, so I get a different cover version of it every week.
These playlists have been shitter and shitter each week, and now a lot of same songs are appearing every few weeks. They need to step up their algorithm I think.
HH3 wrote:Spotify put a metal cover version of Adeles "Hello" in my Discover playlist a couple of weeks ago, and now, because that playlist plays all week, they think I enjoy the song, so I get a different cover version of it every week.
These playlists have been shitter and shitter each week, and now a lot of same songs are appearing every few weeks. They need to step up their algorithm I think.
The inquest/witch hunt going on about Phil Hughes death. This isn't soon anyone any good. No it's not the fault of the NSW Blues for their tactics. It's not Doug the Rugs fault for any comment he may or may not have made.
RustyCage wrote:The inquest/witch hunt going on about Phil Hughes death. This isn't soon anyone any good. No it's not the fault of the NSW Blues for their tactics. It's not Doug the Rugs fault for any comment he may or may not have made.
Lawyers getting richer and for what?
They are focusing totally the wrong area...they need to be looking at medical facilities and response action plans at First Class venues. Not if Doug the Rug said he was going to kill someone.
Having said that, I don't think anything medically would have saved poor Phil. I recall at the time an article uncovering medical records of a similar incident before helmets were common place.
Agree RC and heater. Seemed like some media portrayed it as though the game of cricket was at fault or on trial. Also portrayed like Hughes family vs the players and cricket - I hope that legacy doesn't surround the Hughes family after this, unless of course that's their attitude.
FlyingHigh wrote:Agree RC and heater. Seemed like some media portrayed it as though the game of cricket was at fault or on trial. Also portrayed like Hughes family vs the players and cricket - I hope that legacy doesn't surround the Hughes family after this, unless of course that's their attitude.
yeah i felt for haddin and bollinger, who both had to say they didnt sledge him - in my mind they clearly would have done, everyone would at that level. Even if he did say he was going to kill him everyone knows its not in the literal sense. But if they admitted saying something like that they would be hung out to dry
Of course there would have been some words said, even if they are mates - do you remember Warne and Berry making Slater explode? Also the well-told story of Marshall asking Booney on debut if he was going to get out or was he going to have to come around the wicket and kill him, was obviously not meant in the literal sense.
FlyingHigh wrote:Of course there would have been some words said, even if they are mates - do you remember Warne and Berry making Slater explode? Also the well-told story of Marshall asking Booney on debut if he was going to get out or was he going to have to come around the wicket and kill him, was obviously not meant in the literal sense.
The warne and berry vs slater was probably too far in terms of what is acceptable imo. But saying you will knock someone's head off is fair game imo
