13 ms·
Such a terrible idea compared to permanent standard time. There is plenty of light during the summer, so there's no need to optimize for that. The winter is wh
by TheCoelacanth 5y ago
Such a terrible idea compared to permanent standard time.
There is plenty of light during the summer, so there's no need to optimize for that. The winter is when daylight is scarce, so that's what should be optimized for.
- micromacrofoot 5y agoHonestly don’t even care at this point, would take either way to end this nonsense.
- mbg721 5y agoLet's not be hasty; we could use math to accelerate time itself. Right? Right??
- micromacrofoot 5y agoI would also accept making clocks illegal
- mbg721 5y agoThen only outlaws could tell time! Brilliant!
- bmj 5y agoThis was my response, too. I have a slight preference for standard time, but anything to avoid the twice-a-year switch is appreciated.
- mrfusion 5y agoWhen it’s scarce you want to waste it on the early morning?
- nemo44x 5y agoIt's not wasted then, it's quite useful. Having kids walk to school or to the bus in the dark is ridiculous. In northern areas the Sun won't come up until 8:30AM. Not to mention the extra energy use.
- briffle 5y agoMy kids enjoy playing outside after school with the other kids on our street after school. I understand your point, but my family wants the opposite.
- vkou 5y ago> Having kids walk to school or to the bus in the dark is ridiculous. Correct, which is why the correct solution is to not have school start so bloody early. For everyone not between the ages of 6 and 18, an extra hour of daylight in the evening is far more useful.
- seanalltogether 5y agoIf school starting time get shifted, work starting times get shifted, and then you're right back where you started.
- grey-area 5y agoExcept without everyone adjusting clocks and all the confusion that goes with it.
- nemo44x 5y agoParents have to get their kids off to school before work. Most people wake up by 7:30AM (you may not but the rest of the functioning world does) and need the Sun in the morning. It also saves energy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 5y ago
- km3r 5y agoThis would give us an "extra hour" of sunlight in the evening during the winter.
- runarberg 5y agoNo, it is moved from the morning. In return for this "extra hour" you have to pay with waking up in the dark and doing your morning commute in the dark. I grew up in a permanent DST and I don’t have fond memories of it. Over there public health officials are actually advocating to moving back to standard time because teenagers in particular are sleep deprived. Going to bed earlier is not a realistic option as proven by experience.
- 8ytecoder 5y agoIt also gets worse in the western edges of each time zone. https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/6/21167826/daylight-saving-time-2020-begins-sunday-march-8 https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/6/21167826/day...
- coolso 5y ago> In return for this "extra hour" you have to pay with waking up in the dark and doing your morning commute in the dark Unless you're a senior citizen who's retired and doesn't like late nights, I don't get why for most people, darkness wouldn't be preferred for those "nothing" activities, so an extra hour of light can then be enjoyed after they get home from work/school/whatever. Otherwise, yeah, you're enjoying the light in the morning... from the inside of a car... on your way to a day of obligations where you're stuck inside usually doing things you have to do rather than things you want to do. I think most people would rather have that extra hour of light for after they get home from work/school/whatever, so they can actually enjoy the outdoors a bit when they get home. I always hated the feeling from late fall until early spring of being excited to be done school/work... only to get home and it be dark so basically the only thing I can do is walk inside and stay in there until the next day.
- runarberg 5y ago
- TomVDB 5y agoMornings are for work. Evenings are for fun. DST is just what’s needed.
- bilalq 5y agoWhich is what this effectively does. We can get sunset at 5pm instead of 4pm in the winter in Seattle now. Really, the choice is a tradeoff between earlier sunrises or later sunsets.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoAn hour of sunlight from 4-5 is useless. Most people will still be working. The tradeoff is that most people have to wake up and go to school/work in complete darkness during the winter.
- tempestn 5y agoIt's only in the very dead of winter that the extra hour is from 4-5 (which still means it's lighter at 5 than it would have been). In the shoulder seasons you definitely get more light after work.
- heleninboodler 5y agoYeah, and we're going to get sunrise at 9am in the winter. Good lord, that is going to piss people off.
- standardUser 5y agoPersonally, I have wanted more daylight in the evening hundreds of times in my life, at least. It's the obvious result of average workdays ending at 5 or 6 (or later) and our "free time" being restricted to a sliver of daylight much of the year. But how often have I wanted more daylight in the morning? Basically never.
- untake 5y agoTrue.
- collegeburner 5y agoUmm no, I get up early and have free time before work and want light then. It's a great time to be outside because it's the coolest part of the day. Yet again society accomodates the people who can't be bothered to go to bed on time.
- sorenjan 5y agoOr the people that prefer to have a contiguous time span for their leisure, instead of a couple of hours in the morning and then a few more in the evening.
- b112 5y agoYet who has thought of the corn, the oat, the wheat in all of this? Who has thought of the oak and maple, the petal of the rose, the daisy? None, I suppose, and so with less light available to them, the american farmer will once again lose ground to competitors in other, more sane nations.
- mynameisvlad 5y agoCorn, oat, wheat, oak, maple, rose, and daisies do not sleep, nor do they have the concept of daylight savings or standard time. They will get literally the same amount of light as before, and farmers generally will work from sunrise regardless if their clocks say 5AM or 6AM.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- paxys 5y agoThe amount of sunlight stays the same. The question is whether you want more of it in the morning or the evening, and there isn't a "correct" answer there. Going by general public sentiment I'm willing to bet it's more towards the latter though.
- moralestapia 5y ago>The amount of sunlight stays the same. Lol, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun I know that's an extreme, but you get the idea.
- lanternfish 5y agoThe above poster is referring to the amount of sunlight between a savings and standard time basis - not between summer and winter.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y agoYou've misread the parent. They are saying that on a given day, the number of hours of sunlight is the same whether it's daylight or standard time. The only thing that changes is when in the day the sun is shining.
- moralestapia 5y agoOh, I see. TheCoelacanth was arguing about summer vs. winter so that's the thread I was following in my mind.
- technofiend 5y agoI believe he meant you get n hours of sunlight in the summer, regardless of whether you arbitrarily decide to call it 6 AM or 7 AM when the sun rises.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoThe amount of sunlight stays the same, but you have to rename the phenomenon to "1am sun" or whatever
- freedrock87 5y agoThis isn't going to effect the summer months. Only winter when we would revert to standard time. If am getting up at 7am its going to be dark I don't care if it dark for another hour . I would prefer more day light after work
- jcadam 5y agoNo shortage of sunlight up here in Alaska during the summer, so this will make little difference then. I will actually appreciate having an extra hour in the afternoon during the winter. More opportunities for some cross-country skiing after work :)
- dghughes 5y agoStandard Time would make more sense than DST since that would mean noon is at 12pm (give or take a few minutes depending on latitude) not 1pm.
- tempestn 5y agoAnd why does that matter?
- glglwty 5y agoIt makes sunrise and sunset symmetrical
- dghughes 5y agoPeople against the twice per year time changes seem to indicate they want no man made interference. So it would make sense if that's the consensus to go with the natural rhythm of nature which is standard time.
- tempestn 5y agoThere are no clocks in nature. It is a completely arbitrary, man-made convention that 12:00 means the middle of the day.
- HWR_14 5y agoNoon shouldn't be at 12pm. It should be at 1pm or later.
- CogitoCogito 5y agoI thought what you were saying was crazy, but the etymology of "noon" interesting: https://www.etymonline.com/word/noon https://www.etymonline.com/word/noon --------------------- noon (n.) mid-12c., non "midday," in exact use, "12 o'clock p.m.," also "midday meal," from Old English non "3 o'clock p.m., the ninth hour from sunrise," also "the canonical hour of nones," from Latin nona hora "ninth hour" of daylight, by Roman and ecclesiastical reckoning about 3 p.m., from nona, fem. singular of nonus "ninth," contracted from *novenos, from novem "nine" (see nine). The sense shift from "3 p.m." to "12 p.m." began during 12c., and various reasons are given for it, such as unreliability of medieval time-keeping devices and the seasonal elasticity of the hours of daylight in northern regions. In monasteries and on holy days, fasting ended at nones, which perhaps offered another incentive to nudge it up the clock. Or perhaps the sense shift was based on an advance in the customary time of the (secular) midday meal. Whatever the cause, the meaning change from "ninth hour" to "sixth hour" seems to have been complete by 14c. (the same evolution is in Dutch noen). From 17c. to 19c., noon sometimes also meant "midnight" (the noon of the night). --------------------- Of course the meaning of the word centuries ago doesn't really matter much for what people think about the word today, but it's interesting none the less.
- SubiculumCode 5y agoDepression equals darkness after work.
- dheera 5y agoJust change your waking/sleeping hours then. It's just a number. Set your sleeping hours based on actual daylight times instead of the number on the clock. Personally I'm happy they just pick one and stick with it.
- tsimionescu 5y agoMost people have a fixed work schedule. If you work for Walmart and the store opens at 8 AM, you can't arbitrarily decide to wake up at 8AM because that's when the sun rises.
- dheera 5y agoMost people start work at 8-9am and sunrise is well before that with plenty of time for commute with or without daylight savings. There is another much smaller cluster of people who start work at 4-6am because they're in transit or service industry and they are before sunrise either way.
- TheCoelacanth 5y agoNot during the winter if this change goes through. In much of the northern US, sunrise won't be until after 8 am on many days.
- tsimionescu 5y agoTo get to work at 8AM, you can't wake up at 8AM. Sunrise often occurs around 7:30-50AM in northern latitudes even in ST during December and January. With DST, this would mean sunrise occurs at 8:30-50AM.
- FearTheTrees 5y agoI think I speak on behalf of most computer people when I say this: we prefer our extra hour of sunshine in the evenings not mornings.
- geerlingguy 5y agoDitto.
- H1Supreme 5y agoMy after work bike rides basically end in the fall, so I'm happy for the change.
- salawat 5y agoNot for me. I prefer timekeeping libraries to not have to be changed. Ever. If they have to, should be simplified. If simifying, it should be in a way that doesn't cause grammatical issues. Which this does, because now DST is now the standard time.
- dhritzkiv 5y agoNothing about timekeeping is simple, with or without this change. Not only do some regions already not observe DST (even within the same state/region); some switch to/from DST at different times of year (and this date changes from year to year). For a timekeeping library (which likely uses a system-level source of data / the IANA tz database) this shouldn't have any effect.
- salawat 5y agoNever in my career is there more chaos than around any type of change having to do with timekeeping. It shouldn't be a big deal. Inevitably though, it always seems to bring the bugs out of the woodwork.
- toast0 5y agoAs a computer person, I really could care less when the sunshine is. I prefer my days to be exactly 24 hours. Not 24 hours +/- 1 hour. Also, where I live there's a max of 16 hours of sunlight, and a min of 8 and a half. In the summer, it doesn't matter what the clock says, it's going to be bright when you wake up and bright when you go to sleep; so much sun. In the winter, it's most likely dark when you get up and dark when you go to bed, not enough sun that fiddling with the clocks is going to be really helpful anyway. Maybe there's a little more twilight in the morning the week after Halloween, and then it's back to morning commute in the dark. And it's pretty chilly, so while sure, I don't want to bike in the dark, I also don't want to bike in the cold, either, even if there is sun.
- FredPret 5y agoI’ll take permanent Zulu time at this point
- sokoloff 5y agoPeople who live on the eastern extreme of a timezone likely feel quite different than those who live on the western extreme. Boston, MA and Marquette, MI are in the same time zone. Boston's sunset today is 6:51 PM. Marquette's sunset today is 7:55 PM. It's no surprise that residents of each of those cities would have a different view as to "what should we do about DST?"
- jacobmartin 5y agoI agree. I live in Boston and winters are oppressive in large part because sunset is at 4:30 (or earlier). For Boston at least, I strongly feel we should just move to Atlantic time and just bite the bullet on the difficulties this causes with teams elsewhere. This proposal effectively does that for Boston, but I understand why the people of Marquette would be opposed.
- ghaff 5y agoYes but you're still only 3 timezones away from California if the whole country switches--while potentially being further away from Europe in winter. (I think :-))
- clairity 5y agofor that, time zone boundaries should be straight lines rather than following arbitrary political whims. then you’d only have a half hour variance at most.
- sokoloff 5y agoIt seems extremely impractical for a city to be in two time zones.
- clairity 5y agothe problem isn't going around a city here or there (a few degree minutes), but the crazy meanderings for tens/hundreds of miles in either direction (a few to many degrees). some zone lines are so far off that they're two ideal zones away from where they should be.
- dcdc123 5y agoI think the idea was to give an hour of light later in the day for when people are off work.
- tempestn 5y agoWe're already on DST 2/3 of the year; it's considerably less disruptive to keep it year-round than to switch to all standard time. Not to mention many of us find DST strictly superior given the common work/life schedule. In the summer, standard time would mean it gets light even more ridiculously early than it already does, so you just lose useful light, rather than having it to enjoy summer evenings outdoors. In the winter it's certainly more of a preference thing, but there are plenty of us who would sacrifice light in the morning for more light after work.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bduerst 5y agoWhy not just ditch time zones altogether and have everyone on the same clock? DST was good enough to implement while in an agrarian society, so why not the universal clock in a global connected society? Just imagine the precision. </half-joking>
- TheMerovingian 5y agoThen I can't joke that "it's 5pm somewhere"...
- Buttons840 5y ago"It's always Friday somewhere" is what I like to say.
- colinmhayes 5y agoI legitimately want a time gradient. Time changes by a few minutes everyday at midnight or whenever so that the sun always rises at 8. Obviously the hardest solution, but everyone who is trying to coordinate with people has a phone so they'll be fine and it's not like this is a technological impossibility. Seems like having a consistent morning routine would be helpful enough to balance the downsides.
- FL410 5y agoThis is my dream. It's just a number. But getting the general population to wake up at say 2130 and go to sleep at 1030...well, good luck. Also destroys the idea of a 9-to-5 job. Make it start at :30 if that's better for the longitude.
- bena 5y agoNatural time wasn't good enough while in agrarian society. Natural time was good enough in an unconnected society. When it took days to traverse the country, solar time worked. You couldn't really keep pace with the sun. People were academically aware of the difference, but it didn't mean much. The fact that it was daytime for the king of England while it was nighttime for the emperor of Japan didn't matter. That trip would take months regardless. So coordinating events was expressed in terms where even half-day variances didn't matter. Planes, trains, and automobiles changed all of that. That and modern communication. Today, it matters. Now if I need to talk to someone in Japan, I have to coordinate things so that we're both awake. It matters if it's nighttime to them. Which is why we do have a universal clock. It's just expressed differently based on your distance from the prime meridian. But, it's not the expression that matters. Daylight Savings Time (DST) is a very stupid way to deal with a lot of stupid people. Everyone here arguing about making people adjust schedules, etc. That's exactly what DST is. But instead of your local grocery saying "Yeah, we're opening at 5am for these months" we just tell the entire country to change their clocks. Which is the same net effect. It's a fiction we engage in to pretend we're not inconveniencing ourselves. And in some ways, it probably is easier this way. It's controlled, determined, and doesn't require a ton of signage to be changed. We already have to set clocks, so it all works out. I think a lot of the arguments about the "extra hour of sunlight" are kind of stupid. Because, it's not an hour. It's not going to be pitch black regardless. And most of what people do after work involves walking from the inside of one building to the inside of another. But then again, I wake up between 5 and 6 and go to bed between 10 and midnight. I'd prefer for it to be on Standard time year round because if you are X zones from the prime meridian, you should be +/-X based on that. But, once again, time zones are really stupid because they don't conform to distance from the prime meridian. Morocco is +1 UTC despite being completely to the west of prime meridian. Most of Greenland is -3 despite spanning 5 zones, with one small section actually observing UTC despite being in the zone that should be -1 and the section that is -1 actually should be observing -2. And look at the US on this map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/World_Time_Zones_Map.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/World_Ti...) Central Time is the most dominant zone going from the westernmost point of Texas to most of the Florida panhandle. Most of Texas should be -7, not -6. And so on and so forth. I bet if you "fixed" this kind of bullshit, more people would be in favor of Standard time year round. Or at least less opposed to it.
- wolrah 5y agoI agree on permanent standard time, but just because I think it's silly to make the words "noon" and "midnight" permanently lies. Unless someone is at the edges of an extremely wide time zone solar noon and legal noon are generally to be within 30 minutes of each other. Likewise for midnight. With time zones generally set on hour intervals that's as good as it gets. In a "daylight savings only" world solar noon will instead center around 13:00 and solar midnight around 01:00. To me that's just absurd.
- Brian_K_White 5y agoIt is. If "people want more daylight hours after work" and it's worth making sweeping disruptive changes to make it happen... Then just make the workday from 8 to 4 instead of 9 to 5. No no, instead of making a sane clock and using whatever times we want on it, it obviously makes more sense to make a messed up clock. What other measuring implements and scales should we move around so the numbers please us better? Everything is expensive, let's change the way any monetary value is written to be -1 based. Henceforth all prices shall be written on a scale that starts at -1 instead of 0. If a thing cost $4 yesterday, it now costs the same 4 dollars, but the price is written as $3. This will give e eryone more money! I call it permanent wallet saving prices!
- hinkley 5y agoThe weirdest thing about DST is that from what I recall of history, it came about at a time when unions were pretty strong. I don't know why the unions didn't just insist on getting off an hour early at a certain time of year. Though it's possible they were the ones paying lobbyists to get it through Congress in the first place. Sometimes paying someone else to do your dirties is the most efficient way.
- joe_the_user 5y agoThe winter is when daylight is scarce, so that's what should be optimized for. Yes but so-called Standard Time was only optimizing that for a small group - the intention was rural children walking to school could do so in daylight. And otherwise it pessimized the use of scarce sunlight by moving forward the time workers left to when it was dark. Always Standard Time might be better than awful switch but permanent Daylight Savings would offer most people who work 9-5 more sunlight over the year, the actual optimal solution.
- D13Fd 5y agoIn reality it means that people have to get up earlier and go to bed earlier relative to sunset/sunrise.
- Apocryphon 5y agoWho are these people? Pre-industrial farmers? Solar collectors?
- D13Fd 5y agoLiterally every person affected by this change unless their work or school schedule also adjusts (in which case the change was pointless anyway).
- Apocryphon 5y agoDoes it matter if someone doesn't care about when sunset or sunrise is? Oh they're "affected" but not really.
- jnwatson 5y agoIt strongly depends on your latitude and your longitude within the time zone. There were always going to be winners and losers in this situation.
- vhodges 5y agoThat's not really true... with permanent DST, instead of it getting dark on the 21st of December at 4:30pm it will now not get dark until 5:30 in the afternoon. (I am not really that far north, but that's sunset on the solstice for me) It's also nice for me personally since my circadian rhythm seems to be on 'Summer' time, all the time. CA, OR, WA and BC were all on the same page wrt to doing this so this just removes one of the blocks from making it happen.
- thehappypm 5y agoOh my, such a hard disagreement! In my time zone (Eastern), DST means sunset is at its earliest around 5:30PM, compared to 4:30PM in the hell that is Standard Time. I would so rather have a sliver of daylight at the end of my day! Sunrise at its latest would still be reasonable, around 8:00am, with plenty of predawn lights for kids and early risers.
- Eric_WVGG 5y agoIf you're a person with a normal day job or who goes to school (i.e. practically everyone), an extra hour of sunlight in the morning is wasted on the job or school; an extra hour of sunlight in the evening is more likely to be on your time. My seasonal affect disorder kicks in hard when we leave DST every winter. This is the first bit of great news I've heard all year.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- UncleOxidant 5y agoStandard time in June means the sun comes up at 4AM. I prefer DST, but either way let's just stop fiddling with the clocks. Maybe we could split the difference and just fall back 1/2 an hour this Fall? (and then just hold it there)
- fuzzer37 5y agoWho cares when it's light out. Just stop changing the time.
- soheil 5y agoIf you ask me we need more light in summer and winter, damn the tyranny of time.
- jjav 5y ago> The winter is when daylight is scarce, so that's what should be optimized for. That is what this is doing. Make that scarce daylight available after work, when it is useful.
- chapium 5y agoI could think of something worse than both :)