3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoMorning light regulates your circadian rhythm and is far more important than you make it sound.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- simias 8y agoThat 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.