What if (and hear me out), the internet had a shut-down period, say, once a month, on a sunday or so. What would society look like? What kind of changes would we see? (provided, emergency services stay reachable).
No, just removing the internet doesn't revert life back to the time before it. They are asking what would our "today" look like if we had an internet day of rest once a week. Maybe people would have a regular get together day?
The problem is that a huge number of things that weren't dependent on network connectivity now are. Now, having said that, in many places in the US, stores were mostly closed on Sunday so it sort of was a "day of rest" in many places.
The cynic in me expects we'd see vociferous lobbying from the usual suspects for endless expansion of what traffic falls under the excluded ‘emergency’ category.
I guess people would stay inside, not be able to talk to anyone, not be able to check public transit schedules, not be able to use maps unless they had downloaded them in advance, and probably not be able to use credit cards to buy food (assuming supermarkets and restaurants would even bother to be open).
You do realize that people were able to go out on Sunday and do things before there was an Internet that they could connect to and that stores were often closed. And that they could make plans in advance if they were meeting someone or going somewhere.
I don't know. Normally, I often get together with friends on a weekend day. We coordinate things beforehand via email but we mostly don't really need Internet otherwise.
Define "emergency services". Are online maps showing me the route to the hospital an emergency service? What about online translation service useful in emergency abroad? What about online bank access for emergency funds? Etc...
We really got to the utility stage of the internet where half the services can be an "emergency" service in some context.
But on the other extreme, you can have a look at more strict Jewish communities where one day every week is a no-internet day.
I'm not sure if you're looking for personal or society changes, but I've been doing a completely non-religious tech-Sabbath day occasionally. It's a nice, relaxing experience. Nothing mind-altering though.
That's a fair answer. If the question is whether people could live without Netflix, email, Facebook, Wikipedia, etc. for one day a month, at least my answer would be "of course, without breaking a sweat."
But if you posit a general lack of network connectivity, you're right that it means that most services that we take for granted would be down including things like e.g. buying gas.
On the other hand, if we had started years ago regularly arbitrarily shut down the internet for a day, as apparently Syria does, we probably wouldn't have come to rely on the internet for so much basic infrastructure. I doubt buying gas is down in Syria when they shut down the internet.
It's not realistic to think that could have happened in the USA, but it's interesting to think about. As a software engineer who knows how unreliable and vulnerable our software infrastructure is, I don't love how much of society is dependent upon it.
(and the other piece is, I doubt the US government has the ability to easily "shut down the internet" for a day -- at least I hope they don't, although they might, they shouldn't, and if they do it shouldn't be easy or expected. Cause they would definitely use that ability for nefarious ends).
> On the other hand, if we had started years ago regularly arbitrarily shut down the internet for a day, as apparently Syria does, we probably wouldn't have come to rely on the internet for so much basic infrastructure.
The question then is, is that a good thing?
I'd bet on "no". Right, people on Syria get to know how to buy gas on a no-internet day, but they also have to maintain that knowledge and infrastructure every other day of the year.
I assume the credit card readers communicate over the Internet in some manner. The gas prices at the pumps are set over some sort of network though it may be local.
You might be surprised how much communication there was between branch stores and HQ going back decades though before probably some point in the 90s it may have been over phone lines.
Many people would lose access to transportation of many different kinds. Some people might lose their jobs.
Some people would lose access to their usual forms of delivered food, and would have to prepare in advance (buying food on Saturday to have on hand the next day).
There's nothing stopping people from taking a day off individually but it's still a coordination problem. You might want to spend time with other people. Much like setting a market day in medieval towns.
Without the internet it would be rather difficult to coordinate anything with others since you can’t contact them. I assume phone and sms is included in this blockout since they run over the internet now and could be used to build the internet from scratch if excluded.
I’d guess it’d be similar to how some European cities prohibit all large retailers (including food stores) from opening on Sunday, except a hell of a lot more expensive.
You’d need extra shifts on site, redundant local networks for emergency services, redundant links for phone companies, extra space in ports and warehouses, special contingency plans, etc. And all of that gets excercised 1/30 less often than usual so is more prone to failure—in a situation of where communication is degraded in the first place.
A regular shutdown would be more workable, but given the countries you’re interested in are probably more Internet-dependent than Zimbabwe something on the order of 0.1% GDP when averaged over a month still sounds plausible. For scale, the US federal government spends 1.2% GDP on education.
It is common across lots of Europe for most or all shops to be closed on Sundays.
The local population don't view that as odd or inconvenient - simply as 'the way things are'.
As a visitor though, it means you need to plan ahead at least 24 hours - if you haven't bought food for sunday by midday saturday, there's a good chance you're going hungry.
I would be very interested to know the macroeconomic impact of such a policy. Presumably labor running shops is reduced, but overall sales volume is not, which could outweigh the economic cost of inconvenience for the whole population...
It was pretty normal in the US as well until a few decades ago. When I was an undergrad, very little in the city I lived was open on a Sunday. I remember it being a nuisance as an undergrad. I often had classes and other things to do during the week and often had sports on Saturday, so finding the time to do shopping runs during the week could be a pain.
Historically, the reason was religious. But mom and pop stores also often opposed Sunday opening because large retailers were in a better position to just add incremental staff than they were.
most visitors don't cook for themselves though. restaurants are open, so only a few people will be inconvenienced by closed supermarkets. they are probably more inconvenienced by closed restaurants on mondays.
>The local population don't view that as odd or inconvenient - simply as 'the way things are'.
This used to be the way things were here in Denmark, and yes we thought it was inconvenient and stupid so we got rid of it (almost, there are a few days left in the year where it is still the case, and they are inconvinient and stupid).
I don't know Danish holidays but you don't think stores should be mostly shut on major family holidays? In the US, I fully support most stores with some exceptions like maybe pharmacies being shut on at least Thanksgiving and Christmas.
Overall sales volume may not change, but as a practical effect, Saturday shopping at supermarkets which are closed on Sundays can feel like shopping before a hurricane - at least in my experience in Germany.
Carts line up ten deep, every aisle and register, in preparation for the impending disaster of Sunday's closure. And this happens every week. It's both bizarre and entertaining.
i think that is not an issue of sunday closure, but simply a sideeffect of most everyone working monday to friday, and hence shopping on the weekend. in places where sundays are open the phenomenon is simply spread over two days. if you really want quiet shopping you need to go on a weekday morning while everyone else is at work.
That sounds about right. Depending upon what "shutting down the Internet" means. Does everyone need to now have a POTS landline again if they want to communicate with anyone on a Sunday? But, in general, some combination of alternative systems for critical purposes and lots of things, including most shopping and other services, simply shutting down for the day.
the reason for the closure is employment laws. employees simply have the right to not be forced to work on sundays or public holidays.
if you run your own business you can work whenever you want. you just can't have employees work those days.
restaurants, hospitals, transportation and similar industries get an exception to let employees work any day. restaurants usually close on mondays instead.
It’s not that I’m objecting to the closure: it is certainly very inconvenient at first (I did go without food on quite a few Sundays when I couldn’t gather the determination to hike to a small shop), but not unworkable; it was simply a convenient comparison (if with much lighter economic consequences). I suspect the precise conditions vary by country, because I’ve certainly bought stuff from hired cashiers on Sundays, it’s only the supermarket chains that didn’t work.
As to the rights argument, I tend to be wary of them in general, because any mention of a “right” tends to have an absolute or moral quality to it, and those are dangerous enough not to be used lightly or without justification.
The goal of guaranteeing people a holiday is not itself bad (I’m just not ready to call it a “right”), but can be reached in quite a few other ways, such as (off the top of my head) prohibiting employment contracts that span a weekend boundary or just flat out prohibiting contracts that mandate work on holidays except for (strictly optional) overtime. Each of the options can have additional effects (such as shaping the weekend ambiance of your city in a certain way or making overtime de facto obligatory for low-paying jobs), and I’m not against deciding that any of them is best, only against not recognizing the existence of the choice. My concern is the intellectual honesty, not the employment politics.
any mention of a “right” tends to have an absolute or moral quality to it
and that seems to be exactly how the law is meant to be understood from the way it is written.
the main problem with choice is that it is only the choice of the employer, not of the employee. and therefore having such a choice would be at the disadvantage of the employee.
there is a balance to be made between the convenience for the consumer and that for the employees. as an employee, having the same day off as for everyone else is what makes it possible to join other activities. if people start getting random weekdays off then suddenly most of my friends will not share the same time off as me. that's not workable.
therefore the more important question is, how many people get disadvantaged if we allow supermarkets to open on sundays, compared to how many get a benefit, and is it worth that tradeoff? obviously different countries feel different about that, but pretty much all of them still give everyone else the same weekend off instead of offering full flexibility for companies to choose what days to take off.
I think it's an interesting thought experiment. Would applications improve their capabilities around caching, local processing, spooling of transactions and treat the internet as the "optimal" state but not required? What services are impossible to process locally? e.g. cache map data, road conditions locally, present a "last updated" time on maps.. purchase things over encrypted sms with some token mechanism, etc...
The internet was empowering to PC users. Now that PCs have mostly been replaced with smartphones we think of it as a bad thing used to feed addictions and serve ads/television because that's what it's become.
All websites that allows you to stream things would have a short term download feature.
People would use phones to actually call others, which would make them easier to spy on.
It would be overall very inconvenient, but some Karens would think it was good for all the young nerds and it would stick around for that reason.
It wouldn't get people to meet up in real life much more than they do now, because it would be difficult to organize and it would be difficult to find where you are going without GPS.
People would use crazy contortions of logic to figure out how to enable the internet and do what they want to do anyway.
"Emergency" services, you say? It would normalize "on Sundays we put on uniforms so we can access the internet". In a generation or two, not wearing fireman's turnouts on Sunday would be considered sinful. In a couple more generations, there would be violent street clashes between the fireman-uniform denominations and the police-uniform denominations.
There are plenty of rural towns and homesteads with no cell or Internet service in the US where this is the reality 24/7. Even here in the Bay Area in the Santa Cruz mountains and in Big Sur there are places like that and people living a fully disconnected lifestyle.
So from a personal / family point of view, it would probably feel like the 80s or early 90s. You'd have modern amenities with landlines being the primary form of connection.
From a business / services perspective, places would have to have more robust backup and service continuity systems in place to keep things running smoothly during the outages. But this is just best practice anyway, so I'm not sure it would have as big an impact as we might think.
How does cutting off Internet access across the board not dramatically hamper daily life and business? They must rely a lot less on it than we do in highly developed countries.
This is a good example of "Tell me you're a backwards country without telling me you're a backwards country." (if there's any insult meant, it's towards the leaders of that country bombing it to the stone age).
No but you can use it to check news and current events, safety conditions, communicate with friends and family, and find information to help you survive better
Fortunately for them things seem to have entered in a status-quo that strongly resembles peace since the Battle of Aleppo ended (that was about 4 years ago) and more generally since the Syrian Army's latest offensive in Idlib was stalled by the Turkish troops (late 2019 - early 2020).
This happens in North Indian states as well where the state governments have gotten extremely trigger happy with cutting off internet access for trivial reasons like student exams. It’s extremely frustrating and makes me wonder how people keep voting the same morons (I’m sorry but I do not have a charitable word for them) back into power.
Ah yes, the evergreen complaint in Indian politics. No matter how bad the current government is, it’s supporters will claim the alternative is worse. Even when tens of thousands of people were dying because of COVID, people like this would say “abe librandu (hey libtard), if not Modiji then who?”
Such people missed the obvious answer - the other side might not be perfect but anyone is better than someone who boasted about hosting the largest crowds he had ever seen … during a pandemic.
I'm not even remotely a BJP supporter, as my comment history will attest to.
The union government's Covid response has been spectacularly bad, anyone who argues otherwise is a brainwashed idiot.
If INC was in government some of the more megalomaniacal screwups might have been avoided. Lockdown wouldn't have been announced just hours before it went into effect for example.
However, I don't see the overall results being much better. Be it Sanghis, Commies, Congressis or any flavour of regional satraps, I can't think of a single state government that actually did a halfway decent job.
I never claimed it was false. I said it’s not entirely true. I think like most states, Kerala has a lot of misplaced pride, and fail to see that their politicians are similarly problematic. Just like the common criticism of BJP, they too neglected COVID policies during voting periods.
By pretty much any metric Kerala handled the pandemic better than other states. It’s worth looking at the material interests behind narratives. British imperialism (as export of capital at usury rates) is still heavily invested in India and communists winning in other states would threaten profits.
The CPI (M) can hardly be compared to the BJP, they’re complete opposites.
Nobody is saying the metrics are identical, nor the parties. I’m saying that politicians are fallible, and commit similar injustices to their citizens. I believe it’s crucial to have a nuanced discussion where any side is criticized for their shortcomings.
From the Hindu, a decidedly anti-BJP, left news org:
“Political exigencies also led the government to deliberately delay conducting a serosurveillance study till local body poll results were out”.
It still looks to me like comparing minor flaws to active state oppression and neglect. “Both sides” arguments imply some sort of equivalence which the outcomes don’t support in this case.
> British imperialism (as export of capital at usury rates) is still heavily invested in India and communists winning in other states would threaten profits.
Imperialism as a stage of capitalism is alive and well. Rich countries remain rich by extracting wealth from poor countries, generally in the form of exporting capital to exploit cheap labour.
Communists are anti-imperialists and if elected in all of India would fight against British (and US and Western European) exploitation. The British state propaganda arm would of course be opposed to communists in India, so as to not threaten the profits of the British ruling class.
That's the issue in many (or most?) countries' politics.
Rather than focus on the issues, just keep shouting about how bad the other side would've been if they had been in power.
Somehow, UK tories always found a way to make it Corbyn's fault. Trump ads showed pictures of Trump's america, claiming that's what would happen under Biden.
It's literally the easiest scare piece you can write.
Yes, it's bad, but IMAGINE HOW BAD IT WOULD BE IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE.
Regardless of who THEY is, the people who will respond to those ads will do the actual legwork of filling in all the awful gaps in what could be happening.
It's ridiculous that it works, but it really seems to be effective.
Creating an enemy is politics 101 and routinely used by people of all walks of life. It's the easiest way not only to excuse your low performance, which is suddenly made to look good by comparison, but will also keep the people busy with worrying about that "larger evil" while you do your thing. Sets a low bar and distracts you from real issues.
The opposition would have crippled the country even worse, that other country violates human rights far more egregiously, and that other plumber would have needed even more attempts to get that "paranormal" leak fixed.
Nobody else will run, because by not being a career politician it means you didn't curate your life to be devoid of different random criticism from people just looking to derail your ambitions and character on the inter/national spotlight.
I generally agree, but this doesn't work in countries that restrict cross border movement of their own citizens.
North Korea neither gains talent from abroad nor loses talent to other countries. Europe loses talent to the United States. It's a flawed comparison, but North Korea is not a better place to work and do business than Europe, which this comparison would imply.
> North Korea neither gains talent from abroad nor loses talent to other countries.
It does. Nobody defects to North Korea, but there are thousands of North Korean refugees in the west. That should tell us something. Same thing for Cuba. Their inflow to outflow ratio is 0 (nobody wants in).
> Europe loses talent to the United States.
Net loss, but looking at the ratio it's still > 0 (some people move from the US to EU, just less than the other way around). So something like 1/4 (one person moving into the EU for 4 moving to the US).
if I wanted to rule without opposition I might take steps to drive away or suppress the intelligentsia, so I'm not sure what your metric is really measuring, maybe effectiveness of my tyranny?
Even if you accept "it must be completely impossible for students to access the internet during exam periods" as an important goal (it seems very extreme to me, but whatever) I'm astonished that cutting the entire country's internet off is the only way to achieve that.
What about cutting off just mobile data + school wifi? Everybody with wifi or a network connection elsewhere would be just fine. Still extreme, but dramatically less disruptive.
Plausibly you could limit this further, to block data only on phone masts near schools.
Still an ridiculous measure, but I'm really surprised that they've taken the most extreme measure possible instead of trying to limit the fallout at least a little bit. It's not like nobody is using it - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?location... shows that by 2017 more than 1/3 of Syrians had internet access, and rapidly increasing.
At some level of incompetence, you might ask whether the underlying assumptions are wrong -- for example, perhaps they're looking for excuses to reduce internet access more generally.
> It's like a fire drill. The government wants to desensitize people.
I think this analogy is good, except for 'desensitize' which should be 'normalize'. Fire drills particularly are meant to normalize responding to a fire alarm going off (to make sure people know how to get out of buildings fast), but certainly aren't meant to desensitize people to fire alarms.
Though in the case of internet shutdowns, desensitization and normalization are basically the same thing.
Is that a bad thing? Think about it from a perspective of legitimate resistance against the government. Not only are you training your citizens and preparing them for the fact that this occurs, but you're giving the citizens the cultural understanding that they can effectively respond when it happens. Internet goes out? Let me hop to our archaic method of message communication we've already devised with neighbors and other "group members" that we have no problems with.
For the first world yes I get it this is unacceptable. For the third world in a war torn country? It's almost necessary.
I agree that the shut-down seems over-broad, but, at the same time, might it be too narrow? Couldn't people also use "non-data" mobile communications, like SMS or even voice calls, for cheating?
If they're not stopping voice calls and there's a working landline within 100 metres or so, an enterprising cheat could probably set up a private Wi-Fi access point connected to an old-school modem doing dial-up either internationally or locally to a shortwave radio shack.
1. Shield the exam room against anything you can think of.
2. Find the few cheaters that manage to overcome your measures anyway. Give them STEM grants, recognition, whatnot.
3. Next exam round, find the people selling turn-key cheating solution and give them entrepreneurship grants. Flunk the people who bought the cheating solution.
People have been cheating on exams long before the internet existed. The only way to guarantee no one cheats on an exam is to never give the exam in the first place. I think exams are the “good reason” the government has given the public to justify shutting off internet access, I don’t think it’s the real reason.
Given the year+ we've just had, I'm more surprised to see comments like this ignoring the possibility that perhaps students aren't sat in schools or exam rooms?
If you had an entire country worth of students taking exams from home, absolutely possible given the past year, and you wanted, as a government to prevent them cheating by accessing the internet, what, I wonder would the most obvious solution be?
For what it's worth, I still believe it's an utterly ridiculous measure, but how can we not be considering this possibility?
Uhm. Without Internet they can't take tests from home unless you mail it to them - at that point cheating becomes much easier by just meeting up with your buddies and doing the test together.
In fact for a paper based exam of fixed questions Internet is quite bad for cheating. You’d get better help by asking someone or just opening the book. Or even better if someone else can do it for you.
So, were you able to see why many are not seeing or not willing to see that possibility?
This is the Syrian government we're talking about here. Recent history may indicate that one shouldn't trust them to be entirely truthful about their reasons for doing things
Not sure why this is downvoted. It wouldn't be such a surprise if a bunch of people were "disappeared" during the shutoff period, or some other such thing. Turning off the internet makes it harder to mobilize opposition. Syria's is a dictatorship after all.
From that stat page, Syrians have about 9 fixed broadband subscriptions per 100 people, and fixed telephone lines were only a bit more, but mobile phone subscriptions were more than one per person.
To a first approximation, cutting off mobile data is cutting off the internet. The same is true in many other countries; there's just not a lot of people with home internet connections, and often those aren't part of government forced internet shutdowns (sometimes on purpose to try to let businesses still work, sometimes because it's easier to get the handful of wireless carriers to do it than the sometimes many wireline carriers, sometimes because the government forgot). But anyway, if you cut off 90% of the people, it breaks the utility for communicating with people within your country.
Government or no, the online-exam business is the hot new space that text-book companies are pivoting too.
Teachers can use their service to grade student homework, and proctor (monitor) exams, complete with lockdown apps and eye-tracking via laptop cameras.
Maybe these governments are effectively offering the same service.
I suppose exams of which answers are googleable are not very useful for anything other than pushing piles of facts (temporarily) into students' heads. But I also suppose that the Syrian governement is probably not the best counterpart to argue about progressive education methods with.
This happens here in Algeria too, when students pass the Baccalaureate exams, the Internet gets cut daily for a week from 8am to 5pm. It's been like this for 5 years now and nobody seems to care.
How does economy deal with it? If there is no internet there is no banking, no card payments. Most offices will be shut down. How do emergency services operate? Companies can't order goods, or receive orders. It must be even worse than complete lock down because of COVID.
Something tells me that Algeria probably hasn't moved its entire social infrastructure online quite as aggressively as the US. Presumably there is still some offline telephony (POTS? Cellular service? SMS?) that functions to do almost everything that you listed.
Hell, we had credit cards and chain banking long before we had consumer access to the internet, and both of those require communication with a centralized authority.
Have you ever been to Algeria? I haven't, but I've been to most other countries in North Africa. They don't live in tents there. The cities are quite developed.
From my experience those kind of countries moved all their infrastructure far more aggressively online, than the US. Most of the infrastructure wasn't built in the pre-internet era, like in the US or Western Europe, but way later.
Sorry for the late reply, to answer your first question:
How does economy deal with it? If there is no internet there is no banking, no card payments. Most offices will be shut down. How do emergency services operate? Companies can't order goods, or receive orders. It must be even worse than complete lock down because of COVID.
Well, our economy isn't centered around the Internet that much, we have some variant of a local debit card called CIB and those cards aren't allowed to be used online to purchase goods or services, we can only use them to pay the bills and most people use them to withdraw money at the ATMs. Master Card and Visa debit cards are available but the fees are too high, and both have the same restrictions, they don't work when used online. Most orders are done in person, over the phone, via email, or using online stores and paying cash at the delivery.
Also, most people use the CCP service of Algerie Post[0] to send and receive money nationally.
Have you ever been to Algeria? I haven't, but I've been to most other countries in North Africa. They don't live in tents there. The cities are quite developed.
If you've been to Tunisia and Morocco, the banking experience there is far better, they don't have restrictions on the cards.
From my experience those kind of countries moved all their infrastructure far more aggressively online, than the US. Most of the infrastructure wasn't built in the pre-internet era, like in the US or Western Europe, but way later.
Not really, from what i know living here, we already had the infrastructure of phones before the democratization of the Internet, i remember using dialup modems to connect to the internet back in the 2000s.
These super tests are dumb in any case. All it ends up measuring is who is most effective at cheating. The people that came up with this system probably wouldn't be able to pass it legitimately either.
112 comments
[ 6.0 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadIf you want to know about life before TV, just ask your grandparents.
Define "emergency services". Are online maps showing me the route to the hospital an emergency service? What about online translation service useful in emergency abroad? What about online bank access for emergency funds? Etc...
We really got to the utility stage of the internet where half the services can be an "emergency" service in some context.
But on the other extreme, you can have a look at more strict Jewish communities where one day every week is a no-internet day.
I'm not sure if you're looking for personal or society changes, but I've been doing a completely non-religious tech-Sabbath day occasionally. It's a nice, relaxing experience. Nothing mind-altering though.
But if you posit a general lack of network connectivity, you're right that it means that most services that we take for granted would be down including things like e.g. buying gas.
It's not realistic to think that could have happened in the USA, but it's interesting to think about. As a software engineer who knows how unreliable and vulnerable our software infrastructure is, I don't love how much of society is dependent upon it.
The question then is, is that a good thing?
I'd bet on "no". Right, people on Syria get to know how to buy gas on a no-internet day, but they also have to maintain that knowledge and infrastructure every other day of the year.
We bought gas fine before the internet, and I don't think the internet has seriously improved our gas-buying experience, and yet...
You might be surprised how much communication there was between branch stores and HQ going back decades though before probably some point in the 90s it may have been over phone lines.
People would be surprised the Netflix button stopped working on their TV.
"No Netflix but I can still watch cable?"
Some people would lose access to their usual forms of delivered food, and would have to prepare in advance (buying food on Saturday to have on hand the next day).
Forcing everyone off the internet via government control is a step too far.
I guess this would vary by country but plenty of us live in countries where live money is seldomly used.
You’d need extra shifts on site, redundant local networks for emergency services, redundant links for phone companies, extra space in ports and warehouses, special contingency plans, etc. And all of that gets excercised 1/30 less often than usual so is more prone to failure—in a situation of where communication is degraded in the first place.
An ISOC report on government Internet shutdowns (https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/I...) says Zimbabwe lost 5.7 million, or 10% daily GDP, per day during a sudden six-day shutdown.
A regular shutdown would be more workable, but given the countries you’re interested in are probably more Internet-dependent than Zimbabwe something on the order of 0.1% GDP when averaged over a month still sounds plausible. For scale, the US federal government spends 1.2% GDP on education.
The local population don't view that as odd or inconvenient - simply as 'the way things are'.
As a visitor though, it means you need to plan ahead at least 24 hours - if you haven't bought food for sunday by midday saturday, there's a good chance you're going hungry.
I would be very interested to know the macroeconomic impact of such a policy. Presumably labor running shops is reduced, but overall sales volume is not, which could outweigh the economic cost of inconvenience for the whole population...
Hell, normally at train stations there are some shops that are open and they are packed and cleaned out.
Historically, the reason was religious. But mom and pop stores also often opposed Sunday opening because large retailers were in a better position to just add incremental staff than they were.
This used to be the way things were here in Denmark, and yes we thought it was inconvenient and stupid so we got rid of it (almost, there are a few days left in the year where it is still the case, and they are inconvinient and stupid).
Definitely not in Poland
Carts line up ten deep, every aisle and register, in preparation for the impending disaster of Sunday's closure. And this happens every week. It's both bizarre and entertaining.
if you run your own business you can work whenever you want. you just can't have employees work those days.
restaurants, hospitals, transportation and similar industries get an exception to let employees work any day. restaurants usually close on mondays instead.
As to the rights argument, I tend to be wary of them in general, because any mention of a “right” tends to have an absolute or moral quality to it, and those are dangerous enough not to be used lightly or without justification.
The goal of guaranteeing people a holiday is not itself bad (I’m just not ready to call it a “right”), but can be reached in quite a few other ways, such as (off the top of my head) prohibiting employment contracts that span a weekend boundary or just flat out prohibiting contracts that mandate work on holidays except for (strictly optional) overtime. Each of the options can have additional effects (such as shaping the weekend ambiance of your city in a certain way or making overtime de facto obligatory for low-paying jobs), and I’m not against deciding that any of them is best, only against not recognizing the existence of the choice. My concern is the intellectual honesty, not the employment politics.
and that seems to be exactly how the law is meant to be understood from the way it is written.
the main problem with choice is that it is only the choice of the employer, not of the employee. and therefore having such a choice would be at the disadvantage of the employee.
there is a balance to be made between the convenience for the consumer and that for the employees. as an employee, having the same day off as for everyone else is what makes it possible to join other activities. if people start getting random weekdays off then suddenly most of my friends will not share the same time off as me. that's not workable.
therefore the more important question is, how many people get disadvantaged if we allow supermarkets to open on sundays, compared to how many get a benefit, and is it worth that tradeoff? obviously different countries feel different about that, but pretty much all of them still give everyone else the same weekend off instead of offering full flexibility for companies to choose what days to take off.
People would use phones to actually call others, which would make them easier to spy on.
It would be overall very inconvenient, but some Karens would think it was good for all the young nerds and it would stick around for that reason.
It wouldn't get people to meet up in real life much more than they do now, because it would be difficult to organize and it would be difficult to find where you are going without GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv
People would use crazy contortions of logic to figure out how to enable the internet and do what they want to do anyway.
"Emergency" services, you say? It would normalize "on Sundays we put on uniforms so we can access the internet". In a generation or two, not wearing fireman's turnouts on Sunday would be considered sinful. In a couple more generations, there would be violent street clashes between the fireman-uniform denominations and the police-uniform denominations.
There's no reason everyone suffer because a small handful of people lack the self discipline to disconnect.
So from a personal / family point of view, it would probably feel like the 80s or early 90s. You'd have modern amenities with landlines being the primary form of connection.
From a business / services perspective, places would have to have more robust backup and service continuity systems in place to keep things running smoothly during the outages. But this is just best practice anyway, so I'm not sure it would have as big an impact as we might think.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tell-me-without-telling-me
This is a good example of "Tell me you're a backwards country without telling me you're a backwards country." (if there's any insult meant, it's towards the leaders of that country bombing it to the stone age).
Internet's probably not on the top of the list of things you count on.
Such people missed the obvious answer - the other side might not be perfect but anyone is better than someone who boasted about hosting the largest crowds he had ever seen … during a pandemic.
The union government's Covid response has been spectacularly bad, anyone who argues otherwise is a brainwashed idiot.
If INC was in government some of the more megalomaniacal screwups might have been avoided. Lockdown wouldn't have been announced just hours before it went into effect for example.
However, I don't see the overall results being much better. Be it Sanghis, Commies, Congressis or any flavour of regional satraps, I can't think of a single state government that actually did a halfway decent job.
Early 2020: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53431672
Late 2020: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/compelling-que...
The CPI (M) can hardly be compared to the BJP, they’re complete opposites.
From the Hindu, a decidedly anti-BJP, left news org: “Political exigencies also led the government to deliberately delay conducting a serosurveillance study till local body poll results were out”.
What?
Imperialism as a stage of capitalism is alive and well. Rich countries remain rich by extracting wealth from poor countries, generally in the form of exporting capital to exploit cheap labour.
Communists are anti-imperialists and if elected in all of India would fight against British (and US and Western European) exploitation. The British state propaganda arm would of course be opposed to communists in India, so as to not threaten the profits of the British ruling class.
Rather than focus on the issues, just keep shouting about how bad the other side would've been if they had been in power.
Somehow, UK tories always found a way to make it Corbyn's fault. Trump ads showed pictures of Trump's america, claiming that's what would happen under Biden.
Yes, it's bad, but IMAGINE HOW BAD IT WOULD BE IF THEY WERE IN CHARGE.
Regardless of who THEY is, the people who will respond to those ads will do the actual legwork of filling in all the awful gaps in what could be happening.
It's ridiculous that it works, but it really seems to be effective.
The opposition would have crippled the country even worse, that other country violates human rights far more egregiously, and that other plumber would have needed even more attempts to get that "paranormal" leak fixed.
Nobody else will run, because by not being a career politician it means you didn't curate your life to be devoid of different random criticism from people just looking to derail your ambitions and character on the inter/national spotlight.
Are smart, educated and highly motivated professionals going to North India or are they leaving it?
North Korea neither gains talent from abroad nor loses talent to other countries. Europe loses talent to the United States. It's a flawed comparison, but North Korea is not a better place to work and do business than Europe, which this comparison would imply.
It does. Nobody defects to North Korea, but there are thousands of North Korean refugees in the west. That should tell us something. Same thing for Cuba. Their inflow to outflow ratio is 0 (nobody wants in).
> Europe loses talent to the United States.
Net loss, but looking at the ratio it's still > 0 (some people move from the US to EU, just less than the other way around). So something like 1/4 (one person moving into the EU for 4 moving to the US).
What about cutting off just mobile data + school wifi? Everybody with wifi or a network connection elsewhere would be just fine. Still extreme, but dramatically less disruptive.
Plausibly you could limit this further, to block data only on phone masts near schools.
Still an ridiculous measure, but I'm really surprised that they've taken the most extreme measure possible instead of trying to limit the fallout at least a little bit. It's not like nobody is using it - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?location... shows that by 2017 more than 1/3 of Syrians had internet access, and rapidly increasing.
They want people be to used to the fact that cutting internet is something mundane so the next time they do it because of a protest, nobody will care.
I think this analogy is good, except for 'desensitize' which should be 'normalize'. Fire drills particularly are meant to normalize responding to a fire alarm going off (to make sure people know how to get out of buildings fast), but certainly aren't meant to desensitize people to fire alarms.
Though in the case of internet shutdowns, desensitization and normalization are basically the same thing.
For the first world yes I get it this is unacceptable. For the third world in a war torn country? It's almost necessary.
If they're not stopping voice calls and there's a working landline within 100 metres or so, an enterprising cheat could probably set up a private Wi-Fi access point connected to an old-school modem doing dial-up either internationally or locally to a shortwave radio shack.
1. Shield the exam room against anything you can think of.
2. Find the few cheaters that manage to overcome your measures anyway. Give them STEM grants, recognition, whatnot.
3. Next exam round, find the people selling turn-key cheating solution and give them entrepreneurship grants. Flunk the people who bought the cheating solution.
4. Upgrade your countermeasures, go to step 1.
If you had an entire country worth of students taking exams from home, absolutely possible given the past year, and you wanted, as a government to prevent them cheating by accessing the internet, what, I wonder would the most obvious solution be?
For what it's worth, I still believe it's an utterly ridiculous measure, but how can we not be considering this possibility?
The gov only needs to block connections leaving the country, for example.
In fact for a paper based exam of fixed questions Internet is quite bad for cheating. You’d get better help by asking someone or just opening the book. Or even better if someone else can do it for you.
So, were you able to see why many are not seeing or not willing to see that possibility?
To a first approximation, cutting off mobile data is cutting off the internet. The same is true in many other countries; there's just not a lot of people with home internet connections, and often those aren't part of government forced internet shutdowns (sometimes on purpose to try to let businesses still work, sometimes because it's easier to get the handful of wireless carriers to do it than the sometimes many wireline carriers, sometimes because the government forgot). But anyway, if you cut off 90% of the people, it breaks the utility for communicating with people within your country.
Teachers can use their service to grade student homework, and proctor (monitor) exams, complete with lockdown apps and eye-tracking via laptop cameras.
Maybe these governments are effectively offering the same service.
Hell, we had credit cards and chain banking long before we had consumer access to the internet, and both of those require communication with a centralized authority.
From my experience those kind of countries moved all their infrastructure far more aggressively online, than the US. Most of the infrastructure wasn't built in the pre-internet era, like in the US or Western Europe, but way later.
Also, most people use the CCP service of Algerie Post[0] to send and receive money nationally.
If you've been to Tunisia and Morocco, the banking experience there is far better, they don't have restrictions on the cards. Not really, from what i know living here, we already had the infrastructure of phones before the democratization of the Internet, i remember using dialup modems to connect to the internet back in the 2000s.[0]: https://www.poste.dz/
anyway, standarized exams are the best avaliable tool
I wish there were exams like that after high edu in my country, just like some top schools in india do it (GATE Exam)