4 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your question? The point is to stop changing times twice a year. If you do that, you have to pick one of two GMT offsets: the one you

I'm not sure I understand your question? The point is to stop changing times twice a year. If you do that, you have to pick one of two GMT offsets: the one you were using in the summer or winter. Picking either one solves the problem.

Natanael_L 8y ago
Many people intentionally don't want solar noon to match clock noon (permanent DST), apparently because they don't want to update their schedules and have to go up at another clock time. (Seems bizarre to me.) They want their clocks to be permanently shifted one hour, instead of shifting their schedule one hour.
- eridius 8y ago
  Noon is not the center of the waking day for most people anymore. Also, even if you use DST, most people still won't have the sun be directly overhead at noon.
- bsimpson 8y ago
  Schedules are social artifacts. If restaurants, bars, workplaces, schools, shops, etc. were available at all hours, caring about clock time might be silly. However, since people's lifestyles tend to be anchored around these institutions, it's easier to adjust everyone's clock than to wait hopefully that each institution you care about adjusts its schedule to suit your needs.
  - Natanael_L 8y ago
    With some planning, you could convince most of them to change schedules at the same time as you change the DST regulations.
    - henrikschroder 8y ago
      With some planning, you could convince most Americans to switch to the metric system as well! Not gonna hold my breath for that one.
    - ycombobreaker 8y ago
      Or, just change the clocks twice a year. Sounds like you are advocating the same end result (one-hour shift twice a year to preserve afternoon daylight time), but simply abolishing the current implementation. The present implementation is well understood, and most importantly standardized and automated at scale. Anything else would require massive effort to switch toward, so can you explain why it is a net improvement to spend that effort?
      - Natanael_L 8y ago
        The improvement is that we won't have a clock that's permanently arbitrarily shifted because of ancient convention.
        jonathanstrange 8y ago
        The time on the unshifted clock is also an arbitrary convention.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Many people intentionally don't want solar noon to match clock noon (permanent DST) Solar noon matching clock noon would require daily clock shifts as well as differing clocks at each slight difference of longitude. Almost no one wants that, and the various differences people want from that are all about (different ideas of) social convenience. > They want their clocks to be permanently shifted one hour, instead of shifting their schedule one hour. No, they want society’s clocks shifted an hour, because that is something practical for government to do, whereas shifting society’s schedules by an hour is not.
  - Natanael_L 8y ago
    Basic time zones makes sense even to me, you don't need to match it perfectly. Just don't make arbitary changes all the time. It's equally easy to regulate that everybody change their schedules at the same time as you regulate the clock. It's just less popular. Doesn't make it impossible.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > It's equally easy to regulate that everybody change their schedules at the same time as you regulate the clock No, it's not, and I think if you spent a little while thinking how you'd write a law or regulation to do each you'd recognize that.
      - Natanael_L 8y ago
        You could just make the law say "at day X when DST otherwise would have taken effect, every business with more then Y employees shifts their scheduled times relative to solar time to match the relative change as if DST would have taken effect" Small business and other organizations will follow to not be left out. You only need to do this once or a handful of times before society will learn to shift schedules on their own.
        function_seven 8y ago
        And what is gained by doing it this way versus shifting the hour hand? Clocks update themselves. Store hour signs, bus tables, stickers in windows, business cards, Outlook calendars, etc. They do not. I don't like changing clocks twice a year; sticking with one time-zone offset is better. But having the entire population shift their working, banking, classroom, and service hours ad hoc is strictly worse than a universal hour shift. Instead of "Open M-F, 9a-5p", you suggest that "Open M-F, 9a-5p, Winter, 10a-6p Summer" is more elegant? Because that's what all vinyl stickers on glass doors would look like. And it's still centralized and regulated, just like DST is now. So what have we gained?
adrianratnapala 8y ago
In one of them 12noon approximates solar noon better than in the other. Some people object to that because it interacts with the magic social numbers 9 and 5 in a way they find inconvenient. By contrast, in most places where I've lived, I have found that daylight savings time less convenient than the one which approximates the astronomical situation.

Natanael_L 8y ago

Many people intentionally don't want solar noon to match clock noon (permanent DST), apparently because they don't want to update their schedules and have to go up at another clock time. (Seems bizarre to me.) They want their clocks to be permanently shifted one hour, instead of shifting their schedule one hour.

eridius 8y ago
Noon is not the center of the waking day for most people anymore. Also, even if you use DST, most people still won't have the sun be directly overhead at noon.
bsimpson 8y ago
Schedules are social artifacts. If restaurants, bars, workplaces, schools, shops, etc. were available at all hours, caring about clock time might be silly. However, since people's lifestyles tend to be anchored around these institutions, it's easier to adjust everyone's clock than to wait hopefully that each institution you care about adjusts its schedule to suit your needs.
- Natanael_L 8y ago
  With some planning, you could convince most of them to change schedules at the same time as you change the DST regulations.
  - henrikschroder 8y ago
    With some planning, you could convince most Americans to switch to the metric system as well! Not gonna hold my breath for that one.
  - ycombobreaker 8y ago
    Or, just change the clocks twice a year. Sounds like you are advocating the same end result (one-hour shift twice a year to preserve afternoon daylight time), but simply abolishing the current implementation. The present implementation is well understood, and most importantly standardized and automated at scale. Anything else would require massive effort to switch toward, so can you explain why it is a net improvement to spend that effort?
    - Natanael_L 8y ago
      The improvement is that we won't have a clock that's permanently arbitrarily shifted because of ancient convention.
      - jonathanstrange 8y ago
        The time on the unshifted clock is also an arbitrary convention.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Many people intentionally don't want solar noon to match clock noon (permanent DST) Solar noon matching clock noon would require daily clock shifts as well as differing clocks at each slight difference of longitude. Almost no one wants that, and the various differences people want from that are all about (different ideas of) social convenience. > They want their clocks to be permanently shifted one hour, instead of shifting their schedule one hour. No, they want society’s clocks shifted an hour, because that is something practical for government to do, whereas shifting society’s schedules by an hour is not.
- Natanael_L 8y ago
  Basic time zones makes sense even to me, you don't need to match it perfectly. Just don't make arbitary changes all the time. It's equally easy to regulate that everybody change their schedules at the same time as you regulate the clock. It's just less popular. Doesn't make it impossible.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > It's equally easy to regulate that everybody change their schedules at the same time as you regulate the clock No, it's not, and I think if you spent a little while thinking how you'd write a law or regulation to do each you'd recognize that.
    - Natanael_L 8y ago
      You could just make the law say "at day X when DST otherwise would have taken effect, every business with more then Y employees shifts their scheduled times relative to solar time to match the relative change as if DST would have taken effect" Small business and other organizations will follow to not be left out. You only need to do this once or a handful of times before society will learn to shift schedules on their own.
      - function_seven 8y ago
        And what is gained by doing it this way versus shifting the hour hand? Clocks update themselves. Store hour signs, bus tables, stickers in windows, business cards, Outlook calendars, etc. They do not. I don't like changing clocks twice a year; sticking with one time-zone offset is better. But having the entire population shift their working, banking, classroom, and service hours ad hoc is strictly worse than a universal hour shift. Instead of "Open M-F, 9a-5p", you suggest that "Open M-F, 9a-5p, Winter, 10a-6p Summer" is more elegant? Because that's what all vinyl stickers on glass doors would look like. And it's still centralized and regulated, just like DST is now. So what have we gained?

adrianratnapala 8y ago

In one of them 12noon approximates solar noon better than in the other. Some people object to that because it interacts with the magic social numbers 9 and 5 in a way they find inconvenient. By contrast, in most places where I've lived, I have found that daylight savings time less convenient than the one which approximates the astronomical situation.