4 ms·

We are arguing against a move to permanent DST. The fact that the time is clock is moved delays the period where we suffer late sunrise significantly. If instea

We are arguing against a move to permanent DST. The fact that the time is clock is moved delays the period where we suffer late sunrise significantly. If instead of DST being 2/3 of the year it would be 3/3 of the year, the remaining 1/3 would be significantly worse for the portion of the population that is forced to wake up before sunrise. As an example, there is a period now (before covid) where my partner’s commute started before sunrise during DST, then we would move to standard and happily the commute was back to during sunrise for a couple of more weeks. If we stayed on a permanent DST those extra couple of weeks would be darker in the morning. And I have a strong feeling that can have health implications for a broad subset of the population.

WorldMaker 6y ago
Sure, I'm just pointing out that there is also the issue with geography of a timezone: on the western edge of a timezone the sun is 45-minutes to an hour-later and a move to permanent Standard Time as an example counter-alternative would have similar implications for the other side of a timezone. (More people getting up before sunrise not just in all of the Winter, but also large parts of Spring, and Fall.) Neither permanent answer is great for the entire hour-wide width of today's timezones. In some ways the DST switch is a large part of how we can sanely keep such large timezones at all.