4 ms·

Of course. It’s called an approximation—I’m sure you know this though. Being a pedant doesn’t lead to interesting and/or productive conversations.

by davemp 8y ago

krupan 8y ago
Sorry, I still don't get it. The sun doesn't shift by an hour, it just shows itself for less time as we get into winter and more time as we get into summer. Why can't we just center our days so that noon is always when the sun is highest and be done with it? The shift makes no sense.
- romwell 8y ago
  >Why can't we just center our days so that noon is always when the sun is highest and be done with it? That's what abolishing the DST gets us closer to, and the answer is - nothing is stopping us. Arizona has it that way, and they're fine. A longer answer: time zones are just an approximation to "sun is highest at noon" because it's awfully convenient to have clocks show the same time for people within a several hundred mile radius. The railroads made it pretty much a necessity, but even things like scheduled television programming would be very tedious with astronomical time: every city would end up with a slightly different schedule. Think about it this way: the circumference of the Earth is about 25000 miles, and one revolution is 24 hours. That means that 1000 miles is roughly an hour difference, and 100 miles is about 5 minutes. That means that, with astronomical time, if you have a 100-mile commute (sadly, not uncommon), you also have to account for the 5 minutes time difference between your home and work! While this might not be the question you are asking, some threads on HN have considered the possibility of everyone being on astronomical time, since we can put a GPS chip in every clock (...heck, we pretty much do that already), and everyone gets their schedules from realtime systems. But perhaps a more compelling alternative is just to give up and have everyone follow the same clock[1], extending the convenience of time zones (which are, after all, arbitrary and are an awful approximation for Solar time!) to the whole globe. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/12/the-radical-plan-to-destroy-time-zones-2/?utm_term=.231358155d61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/12...
  - krupan 8y ago
    "That's what abolishing the DST gets us closer to" Which is the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
    - romwell 8y ago
      Yup, I was just reaffirming it, and then rambling on why we don't use Solar time... which is something I imagine being a fun thing to go back to.
- spc476 8y ago
  At my latitude (26°N) the zenith for noon changes about every 5 miles (8k) east or west of where I'm located, and the distance grows shorter the more north you go (at 45°N it's 3.8m/6.1k east/west). That's why time zones exist, to make this a tractable problem (although we somehow have managed to make a mess of time zones but that's another rant). EDIT: my latitude was too precise for the distance mentioned. Simplified it.
dagss 8y ago
No but seriously...the sun is in zenith the same time all year. Summer vs winter time doesn't follow the sun.
romwell 8y ago
>Of course. It’s called an approximation DST is approximation to what exactly? It's an artificial construct with a vague purpose, and nothing else. Please do basic research before accusing others of pedantry.
- davemp 8y ago
  > DST is approximation to what exactly? OP seemed to be suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day instead of a single leap around each inflection point. > It's an artificial construct with a vague purpose, and nothing else A 24hr day is an artificial construct. DST is mostly an energy saving measure, and some also enjoy more daylight after leaving work. > Please do basic research before accusing others of pedantry. I certainly know the basics of DST and the earth's orbit. Thank you very much. These are the type of threads that tend to spawn from OP's style of comment, and I regret my reply.
  - krupan 8y ago
    Sorry, I need to learn to be more clear. I was not suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day. I was pointing out the silliness of shifting by an hour twice a year. My desired alternative is to not shift at all.
  - romwell 8y ago
    >OP seemed to be suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day It's hard for me to see how it can be interpreted that way. >These are the type of threads that tend to spawn from OP's style of comment, Please don't blame OP for what you wrote, which is - to quote - "It’s called an approximation", and what you wrote now doesn't explain what you meant by that.
    - davemp 8y ago
      I responded in that fashion to mimic the OP's tone. --- The fact that daylight saving time is an approximation for fixing sunrise to a specific time is common knowledge and should not require a thorough explanation. But for posterity [1] is a graph that illustrates the approximation. [1]: http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/daylight-saving-time-explained_5096f7937aee4_w1500.png http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/daylight-saving-ti...
simias 8y ago
I don't think it's pedantic at all, as far as I'm concerned I find that light in the evening is a lot more important and useful than in the morning and clearly our life cycles do not match that at all. Where I am in the summer (with DST) we still have daylight past 9pm while in winter it's dark at 7. DST would need to be several hours more to roughly match that (and in my subjective opinion it does it the wrong way around, I want more daylight in the winter evenings). I say good riddance.
- davemp 8y ago
  I don't think what you're suggesting in line with OP. If that is not the case, your comment is worded much more effectively. > . . . in my subjective opinion it does it the wrong way around, I want more daylight in the winter evenings . . . I believe this is because DST originated as an energy saving measure to maximize usage of morning light. [1] I tend to agree with you as well. If we're not trying to conserve energy in the evenings, DST doesn't make much sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History
- mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
  Morning light regulates your circadian rhythm and is far more important than you make it sound.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - simias 8y ago
    That may be true but certainly having morning light brutally change twice a year can't be a great thing then? I always found the switch from DST to winter time pretty jarring for instance, you go from very dark mornings to much brighter ones. In the end no matter how you look at it trying to match any form of "sunlight cycle" by merely offsetting time is bound to fail. It's not a translation you need, it's a homothety.

Of course. It’s called an approximation—I’m sure you know this though. Being a pedant doesn’t lead to interesting and/or productive conversations.

by davemp 8y ago

Of course. It’s called an approximation—I’m sure you know this though. Being a pedant doesn’t lead to interesting and/or productive conversations.

krupan 8y ago

Sorry, I still don't get it. The sun doesn't shift by an hour, it just shows itself for less time as we get into winter and more time as we get into summer. Why can't we just center our days so that noon is always when the sun is highest and be done with it? The shift makes no sense.

romwell 8y ago
>Why can't we just center our days so that noon is always when the sun is highest and be done with it? That's what abolishing the DST gets us closer to, and the answer is - nothing is stopping us. Arizona has it that way, and they're fine. A longer answer: time zones are just an approximation to "sun is highest at noon" because it's awfully convenient to have clocks show the same time for people within a several hundred mile radius. The railroads made it pretty much a necessity, but even things like scheduled television programming would be very tedious with astronomical time: every city would end up with a slightly different schedule. Think about it this way: the circumference of the Earth is about 25000 miles, and one revolution is 24 hours. That means that 1000 miles is roughly an hour difference, and 100 miles is about 5 minutes. That means that, with astronomical time, if you have a 100-mile commute (sadly, not uncommon), you also have to account for the 5 minutes time difference between your home and work! While this might not be the question you are asking, some threads on HN have considered the possibility of everyone being on astronomical time, since we can put a GPS chip in every clock (...heck, we pretty much do that already), and everyone gets their schedules from realtime systems. But perhaps a more compelling alternative is just to give up and have everyone follow the same clock[1], extending the convenience of time zones (which are, after all, arbitrary and are an awful approximation for Solar time!) to the whole globe. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/12/the-radical-plan-to-destroy-time-zones-2/?utm_term=.231358155d61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/12...
- krupan 8y ago
  "That's what abolishing the DST gets us closer to" Which is the point I was trying to make. Thank you.
  - romwell 8y ago
    Yup, I was just reaffirming it, and then rambling on why we don't use Solar time... which is something I imagine being a fun thing to go back to.
spc476 8y ago
At my latitude (26°N) the zenith for noon changes about every 5 miles (8k) east or west of where I'm located, and the distance grows shorter the more north you go (at 45°N it's 3.8m/6.1k east/west). That's why time zones exist, to make this a tractable problem (although we somehow have managed to make a mess of time zones but that's another rant). EDIT: my latitude was too precise for the distance mentioned. Simplified it.

dagss 8y ago

No but seriously...the sun is in zenith the same time all year. Summer vs winter time doesn't follow the sun.

romwell 8y ago

>Of course. It’s called an approximation DST is approximation to what exactly? It's an artificial construct with a vague purpose, and nothing else. Please do basic research before accusing others of pedantry.

davemp 8y ago
> DST is approximation to what exactly? OP seemed to be suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day instead of a single leap around each inflection point. > It's an artificial construct with a vague purpose, and nothing else A 24hr day is an artificial construct. DST is mostly an energy saving measure, and some also enjoy more daylight after leaving work. > Please do basic research before accusing others of pedantry. I certainly know the basics of DST and the earth's orbit. Thank you very much. These are the type of threads that tend to spawn from OP's style of comment, and I regret my reply.
- krupan 8y ago
  Sorry, I need to learn to be more clear. I was not suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day. I was pointing out the silliness of shifting by an hour twice a year. My desired alternative is to not shift at all.
- romwell 8y ago
  >OP seemed to be suggesting a gradual shifting of clocks each day It's hard for me to see how it can be interpreted that way. >These are the type of threads that tend to spawn from OP's style of comment, Please don't blame OP for what you wrote, which is - to quote - "It’s called an approximation", and what you wrote now doesn't explain what you meant by that.
  - davemp 8y ago
    I responded in that fashion to mimic the OP's tone. --- The fact that daylight saving time is an approximation for fixing sunrise to a specific time is common knowledge and should not require a thorough explanation. But for posterity [1] is a graph that illustrates the approximation. [1]: http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/daylight-saving-time-explained_5096f7937aee4_w1500.png http://thumbnails-visually.netdna-ssl.com/daylight-saving-ti...

simias 8y ago

I don't think it's pedantic at all, as far as I'm concerned I find that light in the evening is a lot more important and useful than in the morning and clearly our life cycles do not match that at all. Where I am in the summer (with DST) we still have daylight past 9pm while in winter it's dark at 7. DST would need to be several hours more to roughly match that (and in my subjective opinion it does it the wrong way around, I want more daylight in the winter evenings). I say good riddance.

davemp 8y ago
I don't think what you're suggesting in line with OP. If that is not the case, your comment is worded much more effectively. > . . . in my subjective opinion it does it the wrong way around, I want more daylight in the winter evenings . . . I believe this is because DST originated as an energy saving measure to maximize usage of morning light. [1] I tend to agree with you as well. If we're not trying to conserve energy in the evenings, DST doesn't make much sense. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time#History
mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
Morning light regulates your circadian rhythm and is far more important than you make it sound.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- simias 8y ago
  That may be true but certainly having morning light brutally change twice a year can't be a great thing then? I always found the switch from DST to winter time pretty jarring for instance, you go from very dark mornings to much brighter ones. In the end no matter how you look at it trying to match any form of "sunlight cycle" by merely offsetting time is bound to fail. It's not a translation you need, it's a homothety.