4 ms·

The whole reason we have time zones is so that midday (12:00) happens somewhat close to the middle of the day, and that midnight happens somewhat close to the m

The whole reason we have time zones is so that midday (12:00) happens somewhat close to the middle of the day, and that midnight happens somewhat close to the middle of the night. I'm not sure what shifting everyone's timezone east accomplishes. My hunch is we'll all adapt by shifting activities/business hours/school hours and then instead of griping that "It's only X o'clock and the sun is already setting" we'll be griping that "It's only X+1 o'clock and the sun is already setting" and people will start proposing "permanent daylight + 1" time.

rkuykendall-com 6y ago
Think of this less as shifting one direction or another, and more as discontinuing the endless bi-annual shifting. It just so happens that by discontinuing it, we have to pick a side, and people seem to prefer this one.
- frankus 6y ago
  Of course. I should have made it clear that I'm slightly in favor of a switch to permanent standard time (with liberal application of things like winter and summer hours for businesses and schools), but would prefer the current system to permanent daylight time. I think the preference for permanent standard time, while perhaps real, is shortsighted. The fact that in winter the days seem too short will continue to exist forever, and the yearly switch to standard time simply rubs our noses in this fact. There's also an element of Chesterson's Fence, where few people alive today are familiar with the problems that DST was invented to solve (most areas that avoid switching seem to be at moderate latitudes). The flaws of the current system—and the problems that it leaves unsolved—are well-known and tangible, whereas the flaws and shortcomings of the proposed system are unknown and abstract. So of course changing it looks superficially appealing. Applying this principle to political systems is left as an exercise to the reader.

rkuykendall-com 6y ago

Think of this less as shifting one direction or another, and more as discontinuing the endless bi-annual shifting. It just so happens that by discontinuing it, we have to pick a side, and people seem to prefer this one.

frankus 6y ago
Of course. I should have made it clear that I'm slightly in favor of a switch to permanent standard time (with liberal application of things like winter and summer hours for businesses and schools), but would prefer the current system to permanent daylight time. I think the preference for permanent standard time, while perhaps real, is shortsighted. The fact that in winter the days seem too short will continue to exist forever, and the yearly switch to standard time simply rubs our noses in this fact. There's also an element of Chesterson's Fence, where few people alive today are familiar with the problems that DST was invented to solve (most areas that avoid switching seem to be at moderate latitudes). The flaws of the current system—and the problems that it leaves unsolved—are well-known and tangible, whereas the flaws and shortcomings of the proposed system are unknown and abstract. So of course changing it looks superficially appealing. Applying this principle to political systems is left as an exercise to the reader.