Biologically, relatively correct. For the certain latitudes. Technologically, time zones were first invented in 19th century for real problem of every town hav

Biologically, relatively correct. For the certain latitudes. Technologically, time zones were first invented in 19th century for real problem of every town having its own 12 o clock (for different longitudes). The DST was indeed the improvement of the simple time zones first "solution" which better suited the latitudes of those who started using DST. And now trying to revert to the previous unimproved solution is in enough latitudes still worse. But now it's time where the bad ideas spread better because they fit the newly common attention span of many, including the European politicians who decided to abolish the DST based on the results of the "votes from the internet"(!) In reality, the studies showing "no advantage" of DST didn't even prove that, but... attention span: e.g the report cited as the "argument against" from 2008, now (unsurprisingly, sadly) disappearing from the internet: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_report_to_congress_2008.pdf https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_... didn't prove that DST was wrong or that it produced no savings but instead that "changing its start date from the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in March, and in the fall by changing its end date from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November" still gave "the total electricity savings of (such) Extended Daylight Saving Time" of "about 1.3 Tera Watt-hour (TWh)" at the place where the study was done. How it was "translated" for the internet attention span by anti-DST people? As "even government studies showed no energy or fuel savings" and even those that should know better swallowed it. What's known is that people have problem with the abrupt 1 hour change. But that could maybe today be solved with a few smaller step adjustments, twice half an hour maybe, or three times 20 minutes? Sounds complicated? It's less than before because now at least everything's connected, and we have faster computers. Also see: Figure 1: Sunrise and sunset times with daylight saving time and 2007 extensions in southern Indiana: https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429.pdf https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429.pdf for the accurate visual representation of how the "extensions" look like on the year chart, and how the DST works: white areas is where's the light in a day. Such charts show the "why" of the DST and are latitude dependent but nobody uses them in the present "discussions." I posit that anybody who doesn't understand the latitude dependency of such charts and what the charts actually show and can't discuss on that level is effectively unqualified to contribute to the topic. Most latitudes where DST had really no benefit simply didn't use it even up to now. Some (close enough to the equator or close enough to the poles) should indeed not use it. But it was earlier technically simpler for big areas to have the same rules.