4 ms·

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 ea

by 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)
- julienb_sea 5y ago
  "Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas. I don't think I have to explain why standard time zones are clearly worth the tradeoff around the accuracy of "noon". You are also only mentioning a subset of research on the subject. Increasing ambient light in the evenings is directly associated with reduction in evening crime. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/5/1093/58281/Under-the-Cover-of-Darkness-How-Ambient-Light https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/5/1093/58281... That said, there is clearly a lot of scientific evidence that it would be better if people got up earlier and enjoyed the morning light. In practice, that doesn't seem to be what "most people" actually do. The time that most people engage in activities is in the evenings, after work, not in the morning before work. As such, it seems a clear win to give more daylight in the times people are actually enjoying themselves, rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark.
  - deathanatos 5y ago
    > "Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas. You are ignoring the entire portion of the comment that addresses this complaint: it applies equally to either position, thus, it's a non-argument. > [less crime during DST] Well, that's interesting, perhaps, but still one has to weight it against the alternative. It seems a quick Google says things like DST-attributed deaths alone are ~$200M/yr, an order of magnitude larger effect, not to mention the emotional toll. So while I grant that as an argument against… I'm not sure it is enough. > rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark. Instead, you condemn the country to arrive at work in the dark. It was also tried before, and people hated it: > Polling in November and December 1973 showed strong and in some cases overwhelming support — 57 percent in a Gallup poll, 74 percent in a Louis Harris and Associates poll, and 73 percent in a poll from the Roper Organization. > […] In a Roper poll conducted in February and March, just 30 percent remained in favor of year-round daylight saving time, while a majority favored switching times again. Louis Harris polling in March showed just 19 percent of people said it had been a good idea, while about twice as many — 43 percent — said it was a bad one. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-changing-clocks-history-says-be-careful-what-you-wish-daylight-saving-time/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-c...)
- avl999 5y ago
  Even if the data you showed were true (I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side), of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes then any kind contact sport among kids/teens would be banned (including soccer, basketball, baseball, football, hockey), sugary soda's would be outlawed, fast food heavily restricted and other dangerous activities like skiing and snowboarding aggressively regulated to outright banned. We make tradeoffs all the time to give the people the option to do the things they enjoy doing even if it means non-optimal public health outcomes. perma-DST is incredibly popular as most people prefer having the option of extra daylight in the evening.
  - deathanatos 5y ago
    > I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side You have to be somewhat careful when reading pro-DST articles; yes, the same sorts of arguments tend to be presented, but when I read carefully, they're always vs. the status quo; I've yet to see it vs. perma-standard. That is "we should switch to perma-DST b/c it is better than normal-DST/the status quo." I think that argument is probably correct; the point is that perma-standard-time is better yet. > of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes […] aggressively regulated to outright banned. … well… perhaps we shouldn't be giving children concussions & obesity that lead to a long list of health problems down the line … But aside from that, most of those a parent or the person themself can simply opt out of. I can't readily opt out of society's time-keeping; I'm going to have to use the same system to communicate with the rest of y'all. And AFAICT, perma-standard is a better overall decision, and perma-DST is a local maxima of sorts.
rory 5y ago
This is ridiculous. Why don't they make AEST time permanent? And if people want to have more light in the DAYTIME, they can just MOVE TO AUSTRALIA. Surely that is easier than PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SEE MY FACE DURING ZOOM MEETINGS.

by 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)
julienb_sea 5y ago
"Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas. I don't think I have to explain why standard time zones are clearly worth the tradeoff around the accuracy of "noon". You are also only mentioning a subset of research on the subject. Increasing ambient light in the evenings is directly associated with reduction in evening crime. https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/5/1093/58281/Under-the-Cover-of-Darkness-How-Ambient-Light https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/5/1093/58281... That said, there is clearly a lot of scientific evidence that it would be better if people got up earlier and enjoyed the morning light. In practice, that doesn't seem to be what "most people" actually do. The time that most people engage in activities is in the evenings, after work, not in the morning before work. As such, it seems a clear win to give more daylight in the times people are actually enjoying themselves, rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark.
- deathanatos 5y ago
  > "Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas. You are ignoring the entire portion of the comment that addresses this complaint: it applies equally to either position, thus, it's a non-argument. > [less crime during DST] Well, that's interesting, perhaps, but still one has to weight it against the alternative. It seems a quick Google says things like DST-attributed deaths alone are ~$200M/yr, an order of magnitude larger effect, not to mention the emotional toll. So while I grant that as an argument against… I'm not sure it is enough. > rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark. Instead, you condemn the country to arrive at work in the dark. It was also tried before, and people hated it: > Polling in November and December 1973 showed strong and in some cases overwhelming support — 57 percent in a Gallup poll, 74 percent in a Louis Harris and Associates poll, and 73 percent in a poll from the Roper Organization. > […] In a Roper poll conducted in February and March, just 30 percent remained in favor of year-round daylight saving time, while a majority favored switching times again. Louis Harris polling in March showed just 19 percent of people said it had been a good idea, while about twice as many — 43 percent — said it was a bad one. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-changing-clocks-history-says-be-careful-what-you-wish-daylight-saving-time/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-c...)
avl999 5y ago
Even if the data you showed were true (I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side), of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes then any kind contact sport among kids/teens would be banned (including soccer, basketball, baseball, football, hockey), sugary soda's would be outlawed, fast food heavily restricted and other dangerous activities like skiing and snowboarding aggressively regulated to outright banned. We make tradeoffs all the time to give the people the option to do the things they enjoy doing even if it means non-optimal public health outcomes. perma-DST is incredibly popular as most people prefer having the option of extra daylight in the evening.
- deathanatos 5y ago
  > I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side You have to be somewhat careful when reading pro-DST articles; yes, the same sorts of arguments tend to be presented, but when I read carefully, they're always vs. the status quo; I've yet to see it vs. perma-standard. That is "we should switch to perma-DST b/c it is better than normal-DST/the status quo." I think that argument is probably correct; the point is that perma-standard-time is better yet. > of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes […] aggressively regulated to outright banned. … well… perhaps we shouldn't be giving children concussions & obesity that lead to a long list of health problems down the line … But aside from that, most of those a parent or the person themself can simply opt out of. I can't readily opt out of society's time-keeping; I'm going to have to use the same system to communicate with the rest of y'all. And AFAICT, perma-standard is a better overall decision, and perma-DST is a local maxima of sorts.

rory 5y ago

This is ridiculous. Why don't they make AEST time permanent? And if people want to have more light in the DAYTIME, they can just MOVE TO AUSTRALIA. Surely that is easier than PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO SEE MY FACE DURING ZOOM MEETINGS.