5 ms·

Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9

by raldi 10y ago

Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8. By mid-December, sunrise wouldn't be until almost 8:30. In Seattle, it would be dark outside until 9am. Losing an hour of sleep in the spring is rough, but I'd rather do that (and get an extra hour in the fall) than have to get ready in the dark all winter.

macspoofing 10y ago
>That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8 In what way? People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness. But if you really really can't, there's no reason why in winter, school couldn't start an hour later. Probably a good idea regardless.
- raldi 10y ago
  > People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness. I never claimed otherwise. To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year. But to clarify my position, it's that when asked to choose between two hardships: * Gain an hour of sleep every fall, lose an hour of sleep every spring * Have an extra hour of morning darkness all winter long ...the majority chooses the first.
  - gameshot911 10y ago
    >...the majority chooses the first. Does it? If it were up to a popular vote today, I'm not so sure DST camp would win out.
    - raldi 10y ago
      Do you mean in California or somewhere else? If California, how do you explain the fact that Sacramento has considered this many times, most recently two months ago, and always decides to keep things the way they are? http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-effort-to-eliminate-daylight-savings-1472001408-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essenti... There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
      - djrogers 10y ago
        California's representatives haven't represented the will of their constituents in decades... Just look at how many ballot initiatives pass in spite of opposition from Sacramento or vice-versa. I'm pretty sure if put to a vote we'd stop changing times twice a year.
        raldi 10y ago
        "I'm pretty sure" is not evidence.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        > There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it? You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that. First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule. There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
        raldi 10y ago
        But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST. Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST. I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't. That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best. The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
  - macspoofing 10y ago
    >I never claimed otherwise. "Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8" >To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year. I agree. However, I didn't suggest that DST imposed any hardships.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
capkutay 10y ago
Yes but when you look at time changes holistically, the CDC and sleep experts are recommending that schools start around 9 or 10 am. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sleep-scientists-say-school-days-should-start-later-180956565/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sleep-scientists-sa... http://www.startschoollater.net/why-change.html http://www.startschoollater.net/why-change.html I'm more and more convinced that most humans just aren't wired to wake up at the crack of dawn. The tech industry owes a lot of its hyper productivity to the fact that they have flexible hours for their engineers which tend to skew later into the day and night.
- raldi 10y ago
  > I'm more and more convinced that most humans just aren't wired to wake up at the crack of dawn. But ending Standard Time would make everyone get up one hour earlier all winter long.
  - bonoboTP 10y ago
    No. School start could be shifted to 9 AM or 10 AM. The clock should show 12 at noon. The clock is not the problem. The problem is that people are required to start their day at a too early time. Fix: increment the time requirements.
    - AckSyn 10y ago
      I find this argument extremely short sighted. Why is starting work early in the day a problem? And why is going to bed at a decent hour to give you an 8 hour sleep period before you have to wake up for work or school a problem?
      - reflexive 10y ago
        > Why is starting work early in the day a problem? It's only a problem if it requires you to get up while it's still dark. Otherwise, I agree with you - go to bed at a decent hour so you can get 8 hours of sleep before sunrise.
Ph0X 10y ago
I don't care which side we keep the clock at, but going back and forth is just plain stupid and causes more issues that it solves.
boulos 10y ago
But being at work/school by 8am is part of the disease. Do you think a 7:40 am sunrise is really too late for a 9am arrival? As long as it's not super dark by the time you're in transit, it seems fine to me (and yes, I realize that sunrise in December would creep up to 8:20).
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jedberg 10y ago
And yet even with DST, kids in Alaska manage to get to school despite the sun coming up at 10am. This whole "for the kids@ argument is the worst one. Most workers today would prefer going to work in the dark and having daylight after work. Even farmers will tell you DST doesn't make a diffence to them anymore (or ever). The animals get up with the sun regardless of what the clock says. I agree with OP -- in today's modern world we should just stick with DST all year.
- baddox 10y ago
  You didn't actually make many claims to counter the "for the kids" argument. The fact that kids in Alaska do that is unsurprising, but how does it affect them? I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Alaska is not one of the most appealing places to live for most people, and all else being equal, I suspect kids and parents would rather the sun come up before school.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    As others pointed out society adjusts. In Anchorage for example elementary school starts between 9am and 9:30am to account for the late sunrise.
    - raldi 10y ago
      Sure, but "society adjusts" works both ways: Society also adjusts to turning the clocks back and forth. The question isn't whether society can adjust, but rather which society prefers: winter morning sunlight or not changing clocks. If two people come to opposite conclusions on that point (as you and I do), there's really nothing left to do but agree to disagree.
      - CaptSpify 10y ago
        A small subset of society (school-children) needing to adjust is much less of a hassle than everyone adjusting though. I'd be curious to see how many subsets of society would prefer changing their clocks, vs keeping them the same.
lmm 10y ago
The roads are busier in the evening than they are in the morning. So being able to come home in daylight is more important than being able to go to work/school in daylight.
- raldi 10y ago
  But in many places, evening rush hour would be in the dark in the winter with or without daylight saving. So it's not either/or but rather one/none.

by raldi 10y ago

macspoofing 10y ago

>That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8 In what way? People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness. But if you really really can't, there's no reason why in winter, school couldn't start an hour later. Probably a good idea regardless.

raldi 10y ago
> People (and kids) survive wars and famines I'm sure we can handle a little bit of darkness. I never claimed otherwise. To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year. But to clarify my position, it's that when asked to choose between two hardships: * Gain an hour of sleep every fall, lose an hour of sleep every spring * Have an extra hour of morning darkness all winter long ...the majority chooses the first.
- gameshot911 10y ago
  >...the majority chooses the first. Does it? If it were up to a popular vote today, I'm not so sure DST camp would win out.
  - raldi 10y ago
    Do you mean in California or somewhere else? If California, how do you explain the fact that Sacramento has considered this many times, most recently two months ago, and always decides to keep things the way they are? http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-updates-effort-to-eliminate-daylight-savings-1472001408-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-sac-essenti... There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it?
    - djrogers 10y ago
      California's representatives haven't represented the will of their constituents in decades... Just look at how many ballot initiatives pass in spite of opposition from Sacramento or vice-versa. I'm pretty sure if put to a vote we'd stop changing times twice a year.
      - raldi 10y ago
        "I'm pretty sure" is not evidence.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      > There are two possibilities: California's representatives are representing the will of the people, or they're not. Occam's Razor would point toward the former, but if you have evidence of the latter, what is it? You don't have to be so condescending. There is plenty of complexity that you're ignoring to reduce it to a quip like that. First off is the obvious possibility that being on the same schedule as 95% of the country is more important than being on a better schedule. There's also the inertia of change. You can interpret "If it were up to a popular vote today" as an alternative to DST having been implemented decades ago.
      - raldi 10y ago
        But in 2005, the US Congress reviewed and modified daylight saving. That shows inertia can be overcome when the populace wants it. There wouldn't have been any issues of synchronicity. And yet Congress decided to keep DST. Again, do you believe they misrepresented the will of the people? If so, what evidence is there to support that claim?
        Dylan16807 10y ago
        Changing the day doesn't affect anyone much except calendar makers. Much less inertia there than with getting rid of DST. I certainly believe that congress would rather make a show about 'saving energy' than address the fact that it doesn't. That doesn't mean they are going against the "will of the people", but the people are half-informed at best. The question is what people would vote for in a popular election, without worrying about soundbites, and with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic. The actions of the legislature are not a great proxy for this.
- macspoofing 10y ago
  >I never claimed otherwise. "Without Standard Time, it would have been dark out until 7:40am today here in SF. That's really tough on people (or children) who have to be at work/school by 9 or even 8" >To use your own rhetoric: People, including kids, survive wars and famines; I'm sure we can handle changing the clocks twice a year. I agree. However, I didn't suggest that DST imposed any hardships.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

capkutay 10y ago

Yes but when you look at time changes holistically, the CDC and sleep experts are recommending that schools start around 9 or 10 am. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sleep-scientists-say-school-days-should-start-later-180956565/ http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/sleep-scientists-sa... http://www.startschoollater.net/why-change.html http://www.startschoollater.net/why-change.html I'm more and more convinced that most humans just aren't wired to wake up at the crack of dawn. The tech industry owes a lot of its hyper productivity to the fact that they have flexible hours for their engineers which tend to skew later into the day and night.

raldi 10y ago
> I'm more and more convinced that most humans just aren't wired to wake up at the crack of dawn. But ending Standard Time would make everyone get up one hour earlier all winter long.
- bonoboTP 10y ago
  No. School start could be shifted to 9 AM or 10 AM. The clock should show 12 at noon. The clock is not the problem. The problem is that people are required to start their day at a too early time. Fix: increment the time requirements.
  - AckSyn 10y ago
    I find this argument extremely short sighted. Why is starting work early in the day a problem? And why is going to bed at a decent hour to give you an 8 hour sleep period before you have to wake up for work or school a problem?
    - reflexive 10y ago
      > Why is starting work early in the day a problem? It's only a problem if it requires you to get up while it's still dark. Otherwise, I agree with you - go to bed at a decent hour so you can get 8 hours of sleep before sunrise.

Ph0X 10y ago

I don't care which side we keep the clock at, but going back and forth is just plain stupid and causes more issues that it solves.

boulos 10y ago

But being at work/school by 8am is part of the disease. Do you think a 7:40 am sunrise is really too late for a 9am arrival? As long as it's not super dark by the time you're in transit, it seems fine to me (and yes, I realize that sunrise in December would creep up to 8:20).

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jedberg 10y ago

And yet even with DST, kids in Alaska manage to get to school despite the sun coming up at 10am. This whole "for the kids@ argument is the worst one. Most workers today would prefer going to work in the dark and having daylight after work. Even farmers will tell you DST doesn't make a diffence to them anymore (or ever). The animals get up with the sun regardless of what the clock says. I agree with OP -- in today's modern world we should just stick with DST all year.

baddox 10y ago
You didn't actually make many claims to counter the "for the kids" argument. The fact that kids in Alaska do that is unsurprising, but how does it affect them? I think it's pretty uncontroversial to say that Alaska is not one of the most appealing places to live for most people, and all else being equal, I suspect kids and parents would rather the sun come up before school.
- jedberg 10y ago
  As others pointed out society adjusts. In Anchorage for example elementary school starts between 9am and 9:30am to account for the late sunrise.
  - raldi 10y ago
    Sure, but "society adjusts" works both ways: Society also adjusts to turning the clocks back and forth. The question isn't whether society can adjust, but rather which society prefers: winter morning sunlight or not changing clocks. If two people come to opposite conclusions on that point (as you and I do), there's really nothing left to do but agree to disagree.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      A small subset of society (school-children) needing to adjust is much less of a hassle than everyone adjusting though. I'd be curious to see how many subsets of society would prefer changing their clocks, vs keeping them the same.

lmm 10y ago

The roads are busier in the evening than they are in the morning. So being able to come home in daylight is more important than being able to go to work/school in daylight.

raldi 10y ago
But in many places, evening rush hour would be in the dark in the winter with or without daylight saving. So it's not either/or but rather one/none.