11 ms·

This is ridiculous. Why don't they make the regular time permanent? And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. Sur

This is ridiculous. Why don't they make the regular time permanent? And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. Surely that is easier than permanent daylight savings time. I know people will say it's too hard to change habits and (clock) work hours, but with permanent DST you will have to change that anyway, when people realize how dark winter mornings will be. I predict a lot of people will want to move school start to a later hour then.

Monkoton1 5y ago
Not everyone has the freedom to choose when to get off work as many have commitments from looking after children and to commute. Given a fixed schedule, I think more people have free time in the afternoon and would like to have that time be in the light and spend the time like commuting in the dark.
fknorangesite 5y ago
> And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. What percentage of people do you think get to choose what time they can leave work?
HideousKojima 5y ago
The problem is that there are three options: 1) Permanent DST 2) Permanent Standard Time 3) Status Quo And the problem is that, at least based on what I've gathered anecdotally from speaking to people and from which side the media pushes, preferences are usually 1-2-3, followed by 2-1-3, followed by 2-3-1, with anyone who prefers the status quo in dead last. Personally I prefer standard time to DST as well, but we don't really have any power to make that decision.
- sschueller 5y ago
  What about a 30 min shift? There are already time zone that are shifted by 30min.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    I'm guessing that would be crazy unpopular (for Americans at least) but I'm not sure. I actually had a 30 minute shifted timezone bite me last week, I ended up being 30 minutes late to a conference call with our team in Mumbai
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Seems like it would make much more sense for locales to add their own timezones then to try to globally split the difference.
- tempestn 5y ago
  I must be a weirdo with my 1-3-2 preference then! I hate the time change, but I'd hate to give up evening sunlight even more.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I could not stand a permanent standard time. The sun would rise at 4:15 in the summer. The sun already rises way to early in the summer, making it even earlier would be unimaginable.
colinmhayes 5y ago
The sun currently rises at 5:30 in the summer where I live. It would just not be acceptable for it to rise at 4:30.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Asooka 5y ago
  Why? Just get up earlier to get that hour in the morning.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    I prefer to wake up at the perfect time to get ready for work. Personal activities happen after work. Most people I speak with seem to have the same schedule. The hour of light from 5:30 to 6:30 is already wasted, really more since I wake up at 7 most of the time.
babypuncher 5y ago
I do not see how either daylight or standard time is fundamentally easier than the other. I could just as easily tell people who want brighter winter mornings to just wake up later. The argument in favor of DST generally goes that people have more spare time in the afternoon than in the morning. So extending afternoon sunlight hours benefits more people.
- cbarrick 5y ago
  The government wants everyone to have more daylight hours after work, since that's correlated with higher economic activity. From the government's perspective, they cannot force all companies to shift their working hours, but they can shift the clock. They're changing the abstraction once instead of changing all concrete implementations. This change doesn't make a difference for most of us in tech, since we can usually set our own hours. But it does make a difference for shift workers.
stygiansonic 5y ago
What do you mean they can just leave work earlier? There are tons of jobs where the shift hours are defined, eg 9-5 or 8-4 and you can’t simply leave earlier.
hnov 5y ago
I've noticed people with kids tend to share this position, while those without prefer DST.
chaorace 5y ago
> Why don't they make the regular time permanent? There's a pro-DST lobby because more post-work daylight hours is correlated with higher consumer spending. For that reason, permanent DST is more politically expedient in relation to permanent standard time. > And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. Surely that is easier than permanent daylight savings time. I don't think it's possible to lobby employers to change their shift hours. It is, in fact, much easier to lobby the government to change the clocks. > I predict a lot of people will want to move school start to a later hour then. This is probably a good idea, though... good ideas don't really seem to have much bearing on the way we arrange school schedules.
- _greim_ 5y ago
  > There's a pro-DST lobby because more post-work daylight hours is correlated with higher consumer spending. For that reason, permanent DST is more politically expedient in relation to permanent standard time. You're probably overthinking this. Not every government action is a five-level Machiavellian scheme. Sometimes overwhelming public sentiment carries the day.
  - KerrAvon 5y ago
    Rubio literally said they did this after talking with airline/hospitality lobbyists.
    - asdff 5y ago
      I believe he mentioned that when citing the delay until 2023 to give these industries time to update their systems
  - throitallaway 5y ago
    To be fair, economic incentives seem to be what drives most decisions. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050492391/daylight-saving-time-history-what-you-need-to-know https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050492391/daylight-saving-ti...
standardUser 5y ago
"...then they just leave work earlier." I don't like when people accuse others of living in a "bubble", but this is a particularly egregious example of being deeply out of touch with the lives of most working people.
- TameAntelope 5y ago
  Why didn't I think of this sooner? Here I was, slaving away until 6-7pm every day, when I could have just got up from my chair and walked out of the building! Honestly anyone who is passionate about which time to switch to has put way too much faith in the whole academia-to-reality pipeline. Those folks get shit so directionally wrong so often on more important things, I really don't think any academic's model of the consequences of ST/DT will be anything remotely close to complete. We should all just chill, and be grateful for the relief.
- captainmuon 5y ago
  No, I am aware of the lives of other working people, and I have worked jobs with fixed shifts before. But I also have seen over the last 20 years that flexible time has moved from an exotic perk to a standard contract term in my country, at least for white-collar workers. And we have mandatory works councils, where workers can have a say in certain decisions, for example shift hours. (In the US the equivalent is roughly when a company has a union.) So it is not being out of touch, it is a political demand. I am just saying what's possible.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    In the US, workers don't get to make political demands. Union membership is at an all-time low and most states have stacks of anti-worker laws. So maybe our different perspectives are simply based on the realities of our different countries.
avl999 5y ago
This is ridiculous. Why don't they make the DST permanent? And if people want to have more light in the MORNING, then they just WAKE UP LATER. Surely that is easier than permanent REGULAR time.
- deathanatos 5y ago
  Because, aside from that noon should be at noon (roughly, allowing for the obvious error that standard time and mean solar time introduce, but which are present in both perma-standard and perma-DST) and you shouldn't be legislating business hours by screwing around with what the clock says…, it's a bad decision: > Permanent standard time is considered by circadian health researchers and safety experts worldwide to be the best option for health, safety, schools, and economy, including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, National Sleep Foundation, American College of Chest Physicians, National Safety Council, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Canadian Sleep Society, World Sleep Society, Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, and several state sleep societies. > It is supported by environmental evidence, owing to evidence that DST observation increases driving, morning heating, and evening air conditioning, which all in turn increase energy consumption and pollution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_time_observation_in_the_United_States#Possible_benefits_and_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_time_observation_in_...)
  - cheeze 5y ago
    > Because, aside from that noon should be at noon I disagree. Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be. We should all use UTC.
    - deathanatos 5y ago
      > Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be. I presume one wants a fixed offset / a fixed 24h day (modulo leap days). (The length of a day changes during the year. And I mean in the sense of "the time between high noon on one day to the next" changes, not the amount of sunlight, which of course changes. This is what the "mean" in "mean solar time" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Apparent_solar_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Apparent_solar_time)
antisthenes 5y ago
> And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier Feel free to follow your own advice and come into work later.
mortenjorck 5y ago
I see this as ultimately a conflict between morning people and non-morning-people. I am not a morning person, and so naturally I welcome this trading away of brighter winter mornings to get brighter winter evenings. But I recognize there are many, presumably yourself included, who prefer the opposite. I don't have a good solution to suit everyone, and I certainly don't want to gloat at having "won." If anything, perhaps just as workplaces are sorting into remote-first and non-remote-first to address different employee preferences, the same will happen with times of day.
- beej71 5y ago
  I'm a morning person (I sleep from 9:30 to 5:30), but I generally like daylight saving time. If it's dark when I get up, I get to enjoy the sunrise, and I love wrapping up the day outdoors in the evening. But I also don't have any kids in school, and I don't have a 9-5 job. Maybe that flexibility makes the difference.
aqme28 5y ago
> I predict a lot of people will want to move school start to a later hour then. I'm a proponent of this regardless. Forcing teenagers to be awake at 6AM is not helpful.
- mulmen 5y ago
  But 6am is a made up construct. It's an artifact of the logistics of getting kids to school before the parents' working hours and accommodating those kids' after-school jobs. If you move school an hour later then typical working hours also have to move an hour later and nothing actually changes. Our children will say it is unnatural for teenagers to wake up at 7am.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Thats is the reason, permanent DST won't "work". Childrens wake time is highly dependant on the sun. So, if it already makes sense to start school later, then it only gets more so, if there is permanent DST. Which means, most work times have to start later as well.
- beezle 5y ago
  But but... giving little Johnny and Sally time to play after school is one of the reasons given for making DST the be all end all of time.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  This would be better for kids, actually. An hour less of school even would be better. Kids are given too much garbage in school rather than concentrating on core education.
caditinpiscinam 5y ago
Because DST currently lasts longer (almost 8 months)
stjohnswarts 5y ago
DST is more popular as a "permanent" option for most people. Most people prefer that daylight after work is over.
trophycase 5y ago
As someone who lives in the north. During the winter standard time is absolutely brutal. You drive to work in the dark and by the time you leave its dark. At least that's the case for most people. Moving it an hour forward may alleviate this at least a little bit.

Monkoton1 5y ago

Not everyone has the freedom to choose when to get off work as many have commitments from looking after children and to commute. Given a fixed schedule, I think more people have free time in the afternoon and would like to have that time be in the light and spend the time like commuting in the dark.

fknorangesite 5y ago

> And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. What percentage of people do you think get to choose what time they can leave work?

HideousKojima 5y ago

The problem is that there are three options: 1) Permanent DST 2) Permanent Standard Time 3) Status Quo And the problem is that, at least based on what I've gathered anecdotally from speaking to people and from which side the media pushes, preferences are usually 1-2-3, followed by 2-1-3, followed by 2-3-1, with anyone who prefers the status quo in dead last. Personally I prefer standard time to DST as well, but we don't really have any power to make that decision.

sschueller 5y ago
What about a 30 min shift? There are already time zone that are shifted by 30min.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  I'm guessing that would be crazy unpopular (for Americans at least) but I'm not sure. I actually had a 30 minute shifted timezone bite me last week, I ended up being 30 minutes late to a conference call with our team in Mumbai
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Seems like it would make much more sense for locales to add their own timezones then to try to globally split the difference.
tempestn 5y ago
I must be a weirdo with my 1-3-2 preference then! I hate the time change, but I'd hate to give up evening sunlight even more.
colinmhayes 5y ago
I could not stand a permanent standard time. The sun would rise at 4:15 in the summer. The sun already rises way to early in the summer, making it even earlier would be unimaginable.

colinmhayes 5y ago

The sun currently rises at 5:30 in the summer where I live. It would just not be acceptable for it to rise at 4:30.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Asooka 5y ago
Why? Just get up earlier to get that hour in the morning.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  I prefer to wake up at the perfect time to get ready for work. Personal activities happen after work. Most people I speak with seem to have the same schedule. The hour of light from 5:30 to 6:30 is already wasted, really more since I wake up at 7 most of the time.

babypuncher 5y ago

I do not see how either daylight or standard time is fundamentally easier than the other. I could just as easily tell people who want brighter winter mornings to just wake up later. The argument in favor of DST generally goes that people have more spare time in the afternoon than in the morning. So extending afternoon sunlight hours benefits more people.

cbarrick 5y ago
The government wants everyone to have more daylight hours after work, since that's correlated with higher economic activity. From the government's perspective, they cannot force all companies to shift their working hours, but they can shift the clock. They're changing the abstraction once instead of changing all concrete implementations. This change doesn't make a difference for most of us in tech, since we can usually set our own hours. But it does make a difference for shift workers.

stygiansonic 5y ago

What do you mean they can just leave work earlier? There are tons of jobs where the shift hours are defined, eg 9-5 or 8-4 and you can’t simply leave earlier.

hnov 5y ago

I've noticed people with kids tend to share this position, while those without prefer DST.

chaorace 5y ago

> Why don't they make the regular time permanent? There's a pro-DST lobby because more post-work daylight hours is correlated with higher consumer spending. For that reason, permanent DST is more politically expedient in relation to permanent standard time. > And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier. Surely that is easier than permanent daylight savings time. I don't think it's possible to lobby employers to change their shift hours. It is, in fact, much easier to lobby the government to change the clocks. > I predict a lot of people will want to move school start to a later hour then. This is probably a good idea, though... good ideas don't really seem to have much bearing on the way we arrange school schedules.

_greim_ 5y ago
> There's a pro-DST lobby because more post-work daylight hours is correlated with higher consumer spending. For that reason, permanent DST is more politically expedient in relation to permanent standard time. You're probably overthinking this. Not every government action is a five-level Machiavellian scheme. Sometimes overwhelming public sentiment carries the day.
- KerrAvon 5y ago
  Rubio literally said they did this after talking with airline/hospitality lobbyists.
  - asdff 5y ago
    I believe he mentioned that when citing the delay until 2023 to give these industries time to update their systems
- throitallaway 5y ago
  To be fair, economic incentives seem to be what drives most decisions. https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050492391/daylight-saving-time-history-what-you-need-to-know https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1050492391/daylight-saving-ti...

standardUser 5y ago

"...then they just leave work earlier." I don't like when people accuse others of living in a "bubble", but this is a particularly egregious example of being deeply out of touch with the lives of most working people.

TameAntelope 5y ago
Why didn't I think of this sooner? Here I was, slaving away until 6-7pm every day, when I could have just got up from my chair and walked out of the building! Honestly anyone who is passionate about which time to switch to has put way too much faith in the whole academia-to-reality pipeline. Those folks get shit so directionally wrong so often on more important things, I really don't think any academic's model of the consequences of ST/DT will be anything remotely close to complete. We should all just chill, and be grateful for the relief.
captainmuon 5y ago
No, I am aware of the lives of other working people, and I have worked jobs with fixed shifts before. But I also have seen over the last 20 years that flexible time has moved from an exotic perk to a standard contract term in my country, at least for white-collar workers. And we have mandatory works councils, where workers can have a say in certain decisions, for example shift hours. (In the US the equivalent is roughly when a company has a union.) So it is not being out of touch, it is a political demand. I am just saying what's possible.
- standardUser 5y ago
  In the US, workers don't get to make political demands. Union membership is at an all-time low and most states have stacks of anti-worker laws. So maybe our different perspectives are simply based on the realities of our different countries.

avl999 5y ago

This is ridiculous. Why don't they make the DST permanent? And if people want to have more light in the MORNING, then they just WAKE UP LATER. Surely that is easier than permanent REGULAR time.

deathanatos 5y ago
Because, aside from that noon should be at noon (roughly, allowing for the obvious error that standard time and mean solar time introduce, but which are present in both perma-standard and perma-DST) and you shouldn't be legislating business hours by screwing around with what the clock says…, it's a bad decision: > Permanent standard time is considered by circadian health researchers and safety experts worldwide to be the best option for health, safety, schools, and economy, including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, National Sleep Foundation, American College of Chest Physicians, National Safety Council, American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Canadian Sleep Society, World Sleep Society, Society for Research on Biological Rhythms, and several state sleep societies. > It is supported by environmental evidence, owing to evidence that DST observation increases driving, morning heating, and evening air conditioning, which all in turn increase energy consumption and pollution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_time_observation_in_the_United_States#Possible_benefits_and_disadvantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_time_observation_in_...)
- cheeze 5y ago
  > Because, aside from that noon should be at noon I disagree. Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be. We should all use UTC.
  - deathanatos 5y ago
    > Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be. I presume one wants a fixed offset / a fixed 24h day (modulo leap days). (The length of a day changes during the year. And I mean in the sense of "the time between high noon on one day to the next" changes, not the amount of sunlight, which of course changes. This is what the "mean" in "mean solar time" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Apparent_solar_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Apparent_solar_time)

antisthenes 5y ago

> And if people want to have more light in the evening, then they just leave work earlier Feel free to follow your own advice and come into work later.

mortenjorck 5y ago

I see this as ultimately a conflict between morning people and non-morning-people. I am not a morning person, and so naturally I welcome this trading away of brighter winter mornings to get brighter winter evenings. But I recognize there are many, presumably yourself included, who prefer the opposite. I don't have a good solution to suit everyone, and I certainly don't want to gloat at having "won." If anything, perhaps just as workplaces are sorting into remote-first and non-remote-first to address different employee preferences, the same will happen with times of day.

beej71 5y ago
I'm a morning person (I sleep from 9:30 to 5:30), but I generally like daylight saving time. If it's dark when I get up, I get to enjoy the sunrise, and I love wrapping up the day outdoors in the evening. But I also don't have any kids in school, and I don't have a 9-5 job. Maybe that flexibility makes the difference.

aqme28 5y ago

> I predict a lot of people will want to move school start to a later hour then. I'm a proponent of this regardless. Forcing teenagers to be awake at 6AM is not helpful.

mulmen 5y ago
But 6am is a made up construct. It's an artifact of the logistics of getting kids to school before the parents' working hours and accommodating those kids' after-school jobs. If you move school an hour later then typical working hours also have to move an hour later and nothing actually changes. Our children will say it is unnatural for teenagers to wake up at 7am.
_ph_ 5y ago
Thats is the reason, permanent DST won't "work". Childrens wake time is highly dependant on the sun. So, if it already makes sense to start school later, then it only gets more so, if there is permanent DST. Which means, most work times have to start later as well.
beezle 5y ago
But but... giving little Johnny and Sally time to play after school is one of the reasons given for making DST the be all end all of time.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
This would be better for kids, actually. An hour less of school even would be better. Kids are given too much garbage in school rather than concentrating on core education.

caditinpiscinam 5y ago

Because DST currently lasts longer (almost 8 months)

stjohnswarts 5y ago

DST is more popular as a "permanent" option for most people. Most people prefer that daylight after work is over.

trophycase 5y ago

As someone who lives in the north. During the winter standard time is absolutely brutal. You drive to work in the dark and by the time you leave its dark. At least that's the case for most people. Moving it an hour forward may alleviate this at least a little bit.