6 ms·
While I agree with your sentiment, in practice that’s a harder goal because it means changing millions of people’s daily rituals and businesses schedules. Every
by laumars 6y ago
While I agree with your sentiment, in practice that’s a harder goal because it means changing millions of people’s daily rituals and businesses schedules. Everything from daily meetings, times of worship, business opening hours, class schedules, shared spaces (eg conference rooms, hired gym spaces for yoga, karate etc)...everything would have to change and everyone would be required to make that change themselves for it to work.
There is no “just” in “just stop the DST keeping the natural local time”.
- kupopuffs 6y agoWe do it every year anyway. We can just decide to 'not' do it.
- laumars 6y agoNo we don’t. We change timezone, not the time within that timezone. The former is government mandated and our clocks are changed. The latter is governed by ourselves and we have to change all schedules to reflect a new time 7am (etc) instead of 8am while the clocks remain the same. The devil is in the detail.
- nulbyte 6y agoWhether you change timezone or change time is largely inconsequential. The effect is nearly the same, and it's not like it hasn't happened several times in the past. Society progresses. In an increasingly 24-hour world, it isn't going to matter. And in a society that has increasing concern about the health of its citizens, what the clock says won't matter as much as what our bodies say.
- laumars 6y agoWhile that’s true it’s also tangential to what was being discussed
- kupopuffs 6y agoI don't see a practical difference. Do you mean we have to work to remove the time skip?
- minusSeven 6y agoJust because you are doing something for hundreds of years doesn't mean its not stupid.
- laumars 6y agoJust because a something is stupid it doesn’t mean every solution to the problem isn’t equally stupid. For example I’ve not even gotten into the financial cost of expecting everyone to change their documentation, advertisements, etc to reflect an earlier hour. Sometimes the “worse is better” and in this case the “stupid” solution is actually the better one.
- minusSeven 6y agoCan you give me one good reason why you need to change time at all? Because you have been doing it for hundreds of years isn't a good reason. You can always wake up early if you need to do so. In today's day and age it makes no sense to change the time to suit your needs. You may have had a valid reason to do so long ago.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- anoncake 6y agoThe switching cost is a one-time cost. The benefits are permanent. It hardly matters how much switching will cost, eventually it will be worth it.
- laumars 6y agoAre they going to be permanent though? You’re assuming that people’s routines don’t organically change again over time. But cost was just one part of my point. The feasibility of getting everyone to change, by their own momentum, was another issue I raised.
- Natanael_L 6y agoIntentionally making time be permanently stupid is a bit stupid, IMHO. Lots of existing scientific standards that are stuck with old cruft that makes things annoying (like the definition of electrical minus/plus poles), why add more cruft?
- laumars 6y agoI’d already answered why. Because the “stupid” solution is achievable whereas the “smart” solution is not. As mentioned elsewhere, we drifted into this over decades of laziness so it’s unreasonable to expect a swift (or even any) change if it’s left to those same people to rollback that lost hour.
- arghwhat 6y agoThe smart solution is just as easily achievable. One hour to and from affects nothing, as people already work half the year at this schedule, so no change is needed regardless. Should one then wish to place work hours more optimally, which is just a general improvement unrelated to DST, then such one-off change is still much less work than biannual clock adjustments, and can be done at any time. No "swift" action is needed. So, no reason to pick a stupid standard. (Also do remember that different employments and businesses already have wildly different work hours, with many starting and ending outside the time of sunlight anyway. Being one hour off is already a luxury.)
- laumars 6y agoYour description of the smart solution is that nothing changes at all, and that isn’t what is being proposed as the “smart” solution. Instead that’s a 3rd option where people moan that things need to change but nobody actually makes any effort to change it. I’m not meaning to be argumentative when I say that. I’m just being pragmatic based on the fact that we’re in this “time-shifted” state because of people’s laziness so expecting people to make a conscious effort to change for an idealistic goal (as sensible as that seems on paper) simply isn’t going to happen. Not to mention that people’s personal timetable is often dictated by multiple parties (as I examples earlier: gym classes, sprint stand up, times of worship, school hours, etc). A change like that couldn’t easily be drip fed to the masses as everyone’s schedules have already been designed around the current “time-shift” and a persons schedule isn’t generally a solo calendar without dependencies. For example I could start work an hour earlier but my sons childminder and daughters nursery isn’t opening an hour earlier. So I can’t change my behaviour. Everyone needs to make the change together if it’s going to work. Hence why changing timezones “works” for time-shifting. (I say “works” because it accomplishes it’s goal of time-shifting a populous but obviously different people might disagree it’s a solution to the larger problem of natural day light hours).
- mapgrep 6y ago> it means changing millions of people’s daily rituals and businesses schedules. Last I checked that’s already well under way!
- anoncake 6y agoYou don't change any schedules, you stop changing them twice a year. What you change is merely what each our is called.