4 ms·

> 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, incl

by 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.
        raldi 10y ago
        > The question is what people would vote for in a popular election I totally agree. > with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion. Is that really what you believe?
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.

by raldi 10y ago

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.
      - raldi 10y ago
        > The question is what people would vote for in a popular election I totally agree. > with an entire 5+ minutes of research into the topic You're being condescending and dismissive here. I've acknowledged that many people agree with your opinion that an extra hour of morning sunlight all winter long is not worth the hassle of changing clocks twice a year; you seem to be saying that only an ignorant person could possibly have the opposite opinion. Is that really what you believe?

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.