13 ms·

More info here: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent-2023-2022-03-15/ https://www.reuters.co

More info here: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent-2023-2022-03-15/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-tha... Important note: "Senator Marco Rubio said after input from airlines and broadcasters that supporters agreed that the change would not take place until November 2023."

rhexs 5y ago
- anchpop 5y ago
  Presumably your state chose to elect some of the senators who voted unanimously to pass the bill because the electorate trusted their judgement. Sometimes making the best judgement that means consulting with interest groups like airlines, who offer an important service millions of Americans depend on. I'm not sure what you're unhappy about here
  - nr2x 5y ago
    Because public polling regularly shows legislators do what donors want, not voters.
    - camel_Snake 5y ago
      to be fair a public poll is not exactly representative of the subset of the population that consistently votes.
    - mmcgaha 5y ago
      And yet we vote them back into office. What is the solution to this problem?
      - paxys 5y ago
        The solution has been obvious for a long time – politicians must campaign with a fixed budget and no outside special interest financing.
        robocat 5y ago
        That requires Restrictions on free speech, which would be difficult to do (1A). New Zealand has political campaign budgets, and limits on airtime. However restricting private citizens is difficult. There was a significant controversy in the 2005 New Zealand elections regarding budgets. It is alleged US fundamentalists significantly (for NZ lol) funded the Exclusive Brethren Church to produce pamphlets in support of the National Party, by smearing both the Labour Party and the Green Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_fund...
      - bregma 5y ago
        Donate more. Be the biggest donor and you will be able to buy the most votes.
        nr2x 5y ago
        Yes, you’ve correctly identified the problem.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Where is that research? How could polling show that they do what donors want? Do they poll donors?
    - anchpop 5y ago
      Pollings actually shows legislators are exactly in lockstep with voters. For instance, a strong majority of Americans say they would not pay an additional $10 per month in electricity to combat climate change. So legislators faithfully do nothing to combat climate change that would cost voters in any way. You may not like it, and neither do I, but the problem is with the voters rather than the politicians
  - vmception 5y ago
    I went to the ballot and saw someone running for Senator who I had never heard of, against other people who I had never heard of And the other Senator ran unopposed for a party different from my Presidential ticket pick, but not like that matters because my state is too populated for my vote to have the same weight, or any weight, in the outcome Tell me again why my state chose anything?
    - mrguyorama 5y ago
      If you've never heard of your states senators, that's pretty sad. I knew who my state's senators were when I was like 6, or at least the senator for my district. There's only two of them, you can definitely learn about them. This does not make the rest of your comment untrue.
      - vmception 5y ago
        I knew at least one of them at least one at one point in time, and I didn't even live in that state then. I would say its pretty sad you're in the same place you were since you were 6. I guess the point is that we don't know anything about each other and can't make any conclusion really, except that states don't choose anything with any coherent rationale because the individuals are on just as wide of a spectrum of awareness and lack of choice.
- jspaetzel 5y ago
  It takes time (investment) to change time... this bit of consultation will likely save a lot of stress for the people implementing this change.
- kevinmgranger 5y ago
  From some of the industries that would be most impacted by it, and those impacts being ones that would cascade to the people who fly or consume broadcasted media? Yeah, they should be talking to them.
- rexpop 5y ago
  It's not about permission, it's about Schelling points.
- OrwellianChild 5y ago
  For context, BC, Washington, Oregon, and California have all passed state bills to move to permanent DST but need Federal approval per U.S. law. In short, they did get approval from the time zone who will be first to make the change, and the support is pretty overwhelmingly in favor. The North American west coast will change as one to full time DST if this passes the House and is signed by the President.
thehappypm 5y ago
That’s pretty soon. It makes sense to take some time to prep.
- notriddle 5y ago
  They're handling it better than Samoa did, anyway [1]. [1]: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030397.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030397.html
- imoverclocked 5y ago
  I see what you did there. I wonder how many bugs will pop out because of this. Time is already pretty complex… and it might force some old systems to need updates.
mrfusion 5y ago
You could really think of it starting in March 2023.
- Bilal_io 5y ago
  ~~I assume they'll be doing the November switch and staying on it permanently. So, it wouldn't be starting in March 2023.~~ Seems like I misread what was stated in the article.
  - froh 5y ago
    > They will *not* make the November switch... Ftfy
  - kmote00 5y ago
    Unfortunately, that is NOT what the article states. DST (Daylight savings time) ENDS on November 5th (when we change back to what is called "Standard Time"). 2 weeks later, DST (not ST) becomes the law of the land. Which means, as the OP stated, unless they change the implementation date, there will indeed be a 2 week flip-flop.
    - davis_m 5y ago
      There is no "implementation date" in the current text of the bill. As written, it would take effect immediately.
      - nulbyte 5y ago
        I suspect it is in the amendment[1], which does not yet appear to be on Congress' website, as it was just passed earlier today. [1] https://youtu.be/_WS64Q3-emk?t=37 https://youtu.be/_WS64Q3-emk?t=37
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
withzombies 5y ago
The Hill article[1] says it won't go into effect until November 20, 2023. > The proposal would not take effect until Nov. 20, 2023, to give airlines and other transportation industries more time to adjust to the change. But we switch back to standard time on November 5, 2023. Just to get two weeks of that until we switch back to summer time permanently? [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/598314-senate-unanimously-approves-making-daylight-saving-time-permanent https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/598314-senate-unanimousl...
- MontagFTB 5y ago
  This made me laugh out loud.
- singlow 5y ago
  After that date we would no longer transition away from daylight saving time. It would not cause an immediate transition. There would be one more transition in the following year to get back onto daylight saving time. So the effective effective date is really march of 2024.
  - metadat 5y ago
    It's so stupid to delay for years, this should take effect immediately. There is no real sense in pussy footing about, people need to just do the work either way.
    - bootlooped 5y ago
      Think of all the code that needs changed. I can wait another year or two, just as long as we actually commit and follow through.
      - parineum 5y ago
        If you're rolling your own datetime object for some reason, sure. But to the VAST majority of applications, this is an "update your referenced packages" change.
goerz 5y ago
Even more important note from that article: "The House of Representatives, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, still must pass the bill" I don't think there's any guarantee that they will even take up the bill, much less vote for it. (Hopefully, I'm wrong, because I would love permanent DST)
- extheat 5y ago
  There's never a guarantee but being a unanimous vote in the Senate and one of the few bipartisan things that can actually pass both houses, I'd say it's pretty likely it will pass in some manner.
SteveDR 5y ago
> The National Association of Convenience Stores opposes the change, telling Congress this month "we should not have kids going to school in the dark." Wouldn’t it be more “convenient” to have children go to school at a time that is in line with their natural sleep patterns? From the CDC [1]: “The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that middle and high schools start at 8:30 a.m. or later to give students the opportunity to get the amount of sleep they need, but most American adolescents start school too early.” [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.h...
- lolinder 5y ago
  This makes the problem worse. If 8:30 standard time is when school ought to be starting, that's now 9:30, which is even less likely to happen.
  - hannasanarion 5y ago
    8:30 is when schools ought to be starting, which will be after sunrise for every state in the union, except Alaska, even on the darkest day. Most schools in America currently start at 7:30, which is way too early.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      Agreed, but my point is that under this new law, schools will be effectively starting at 6:30 (as we've been measuring time in the winter). This means we're bringing school start times in the wrong direction and will have to move them forward by 2 hours rather than 1 to get to a reasonable start time.
    - ksec 5y ago
      >Most schools in America currently start at 7:30, I guess I learn something new every day. So Breakfast at 6? Leave home at 6:30? I imagine this is because this give enough time for parents to go to work after they dropped their kids? Thank God we have boarding school in the UK.

rhexs 5y ago

anchpop 5y ago
Presumably your state chose to elect some of the senators who voted unanimously to pass the bill because the electorate trusted their judgement. Sometimes making the best judgement that means consulting with interest groups like airlines, who offer an important service millions of Americans depend on. I'm not sure what you're unhappy about here
- nr2x 5y ago
  Because public polling regularly shows legislators do what donors want, not voters.
  - camel_Snake 5y ago
    to be fair a public poll is not exactly representative of the subset of the population that consistently votes.
  - mmcgaha 5y ago
    And yet we vote them back into office. What is the solution to this problem?
    - paxys 5y ago
      The solution has been obvious for a long time – politicians must campaign with a fixed budget and no outside special interest financing.
      - robocat 5y ago
        That requires Restrictions on free speech, which would be difficult to do (1A). New Zealand has political campaign budgets, and limits on airtime. However restricting private citizens is difficult. There was a significant controversy in the 2005 New Zealand elections regarding budgets. It is alleged US fundamentalists significantly (for NZ lol) funded the Exclusive Brethren Church to produce pamphlets in support of the National Party, by smearing both the Labour Party and the Green Party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_funding_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_New_Zealand_election_fund...
    - bregma 5y ago
      Donate more. Be the biggest donor and you will be able to buy the most votes.
      - nr2x 5y ago
        Yes, you’ve correctly identified the problem.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Where is that research? How could polling show that they do what donors want? Do they poll donors?
  - anchpop 5y ago
    Pollings actually shows legislators are exactly in lockstep with voters. For instance, a strong majority of Americans say they would not pay an additional $10 per month in electricity to combat climate change. So legislators faithfully do nothing to combat climate change that would cost voters in any way. You may not like it, and neither do I, but the problem is with the voters rather than the politicians
- vmception 5y ago
  I went to the ballot and saw someone running for Senator who I had never heard of, against other people who I had never heard of And the other Senator ran unopposed for a party different from my Presidential ticket pick, but not like that matters because my state is too populated for my vote to have the same weight, or any weight, in the outcome Tell me again why my state chose anything?
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    If you've never heard of your states senators, that's pretty sad. I knew who my state's senators were when I was like 6, or at least the senator for my district. There's only two of them, you can definitely learn about them. This does not make the rest of your comment untrue.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I knew at least one of them at least one at one point in time, and I didn't even live in that state then. I would say its pretty sad you're in the same place you were since you were 6. I guess the point is that we don't know anything about each other and can't make any conclusion really, except that states don't choose anything with any coherent rationale because the individuals are on just as wide of a spectrum of awareness and lack of choice.
jspaetzel 5y ago
It takes time (investment) to change time... this bit of consultation will likely save a lot of stress for the people implementing this change.
kevinmgranger 5y ago
From some of the industries that would be most impacted by it, and those impacts being ones that would cascade to the people who fly or consume broadcasted media? Yeah, they should be talking to them.
rexpop 5y ago
It's not about permission, it's about Schelling points.
OrwellianChild 5y ago
For context, BC, Washington, Oregon, and California have all passed state bills to move to permanent DST but need Federal approval per U.S. law. In short, they did get approval from the time zone who will be first to make the change, and the support is pretty overwhelmingly in favor. The North American west coast will change as one to full time DST if this passes the House and is signed by the President.

thehappypm 5y ago

That’s pretty soon. It makes sense to take some time to prep.

notriddle 5y ago
They're handling it better than Samoa did, anyway [1]. [1]: https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030397.html https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/tz/2021-September/030397.html
imoverclocked 5y ago
I see what you did there. I wonder how many bugs will pop out because of this. Time is already pretty complex… and it might force some old systems to need updates.

mrfusion 5y ago

You could really think of it starting in March 2023.

Bilal_io 5y ago
~~I assume they'll be doing the November switch and staying on it permanently. So, it wouldn't be starting in March 2023.~~ Seems like I misread what was stated in the article.
- froh 5y ago
  > They will *not* make the November switch... Ftfy
- kmote00 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that is NOT what the article states. DST (Daylight savings time) ENDS on November 5th (when we change back to what is called "Standard Time"). 2 weeks later, DST (not ST) becomes the law of the land. Which means, as the OP stated, unless they change the implementation date, there will indeed be a 2 week flip-flop.
  - davis_m 5y ago
    There is no "implementation date" in the current text of the bill. As written, it would take effect immediately.
    - nulbyte 5y ago
      I suspect it is in the amendment[1], which does not yet appear to be on Congress' website, as it was just passed earlier today. [1] https://youtu.be/_WS64Q3-emk?t=37 https://youtu.be/_WS64Q3-emk?t=37
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

withzombies 5y ago

The Hill article[1] says it won't go into effect until November 20, 2023. > The proposal would not take effect until Nov. 20, 2023, to give airlines and other transportation industries more time to adjust to the change. But we switch back to standard time on November 5, 2023. Just to get two weeks of that until we switch back to summer time permanently? [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/598314-senate-unanimously-approves-making-daylight-saving-time-permanent https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/598314-senate-unanimousl...

MontagFTB 5y ago
This made me laugh out loud.
singlow 5y ago
After that date we would no longer transition away from daylight saving time. It would not cause an immediate transition. There would be one more transition in the following year to get back onto daylight saving time. So the effective effective date is really march of 2024.
- metadat 5y ago
  It's so stupid to delay for years, this should take effect immediately. There is no real sense in pussy footing about, people need to just do the work either way.
  - bootlooped 5y ago
    Think of all the code that needs changed. I can wait another year or two, just as long as we actually commit and follow through.
    - parineum 5y ago
      If you're rolling your own datetime object for some reason, sure. But to the VAST majority of applications, this is an "update your referenced packages" change.

goerz 5y ago

Even more important note from that article: "The House of Representatives, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, still must pass the bill" I don't think there's any guarantee that they will even take up the bill, much less vote for it. (Hopefully, I'm wrong, because I would love permanent DST)

extheat 5y ago
There's never a guarantee but being a unanimous vote in the Senate and one of the few bipartisan things that can actually pass both houses, I'd say it's pretty likely it will pass in some manner.

SteveDR 5y ago

> The National Association of Convenience Stores opposes the change, telling Congress this month "we should not have kids going to school in the dark." Wouldn’t it be more “convenient” to have children go to school at a time that is in line with their natural sleep patterns? From the CDC [1]: “The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that middle and high schools start at 8:30 a.m. or later to give students the opportunity to get the amount of sleep they need, but most American adolescents start school too early.” [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.html https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/features/schools-start-too-early.h...

lolinder 5y ago
This makes the problem worse. If 8:30 standard time is when school ought to be starting, that's now 9:30, which is even less likely to happen.
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  8:30 is when schools ought to be starting, which will be after sunrise for every state in the union, except Alaska, even on the darkest day. Most schools in America currently start at 7:30, which is way too early.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    Agreed, but my point is that under this new law, schools will be effectively starting at 6:30 (as we've been measuring time in the winter). This means we're bringing school start times in the wrong direction and will have to move them forward by 2 hours rather than 1 to get to a reasonable start time.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >Most schools in America currently start at 7:30, I guess I learn something new every day. So Breakfast at 6? Leave home at 6:30? I imagine this is because this give enough time for parents to go to work after they dropped their kids? Thank God we have boarding school in the UK.