6 ms·
Its so strange how people on this thread are complaining about the issues you mentioned, but twice every year I see articles on hackernews/other areas about how
by subsubzero 5y ago
Its so strange how people on this thread are complaining about the issues you mentioned, but twice every year I see articles on hackernews/other areas about how bad the effects of changing time to DST and back and how detrimental it is for everyone's health. People can't have it both ways.
My gut suspicion is why this passed is people are more angrier and stressed out/depressed than they have been in a very long time and its an appeasement so they don't take their anger out at the polls come November, that and it is an easy thing to change that requires next to no stimulus. I expect more of these appeasement bills to start passing as gas heads to the moon along with inflation.
- dillondoyle 5y agoI see it too (work to elect Dems). Especially if gas is over $5 past august. Seeing signs it will cool down though? Subsidizing gas seems like obvious on paper but fraught with problems especially with inflation (and opposite of what's needed for climate change). Would love to see federal legalization, or at least decriminalization of marijuana. IDK if only decriminalization would hold up with reconciliation but I think regulating it legalized commerce would. And sad to say but assuming Roe is gutted/thrown to the states that could galvanize turnout on both sides, hopefully to our benefit. We'll see what games are played with Jackson's nomination too
- exolymph 5y agoLol at the idea that electing Democrats will help with gas prices. Come to Cali and see how that works in practice.
- alx__ 5y agoGas prices are higher in California due to multiple taxes being added to the base price
- Brybry 5y agoIsn't California gasoline generally more expensive because it requires a more stringent formulation of gasoline and so only a handful of refineries produce that?[1][2] I imagine if the whole country used the California standard then gas prices in California would go down. I don't know how much it would go up in the rest of the country though. Really we should just ditch gas. The political drama from the last 50+ years over oil alone seems like a no-brainer for anything but gasoline, even if it costs more. [1] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/gasoline/about https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/gasoline/about [2] https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article259190893.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article259190893.html
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dillondoyle 5y agoYes I know. That's why am I saying if it gets above $5 nationwide that's a symbolic number (despite gas still being cheaper per mile driven but whatever). I'm saying that could mean a decent chance of Dems subsidizing fuel temporarily, maybe similar to child tax credit mailed out to families under $50k monthly. I doubt would get R support unless they put into it vast deregulation as well. And with inflation might not even be a great idea. We're going to lose anyways unless something unexpected happens.
- Robotbeat 5y agoI am not sure gas will remain that high. I’ve noticed gas starting to reduce slightly already. I can see populist measures, such as prohibiting or limiting exports of gasoline or whatever, to potentially reduce the gas price in the near term.
- dillondoyle 5y agoThe futures price is going down a good amount. There's really not much we can do about it except bribe Venezuela, iran, and MBS. Which seems like we're trying to do. Which is gross on its own too.
- Robotbeat 5y agoI don’t particularly like any of those, but I honestly think we should bury the hatchet with Venezuela. MBS is the worst and honestly, this is unpopular, but I think Saudi Arabia is more problematic than Iran.
- dillondoyle 5y agoi agree. given those choices i would choose venezuala too. especially if we can get some concessions for democracy/corruption. it is close to our backyard.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago> Subsidizing gas seems like obvious on paper but fraught with problems especially with inflation (and opposite of what's needed for climate change). Gas (fossil fuels in general) is already extremely heavily subsidized.
- dillondoyle 5y agoFor sure. I'm talking about direct payments to lower income families. When you count in the externalities of pollution and climate change the amount we pay is cheap (it's still cheap per mile driven and just in general terms we drive giant cars long distances it's crazy...) We're already spending billions on health effects, lost working lives, and even more on existing damage from climate change. Biggest missed opportunity is the failed climate bill. I'm not optimistic about the future.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- graeme 5y agoYou lose an hour of sleep once, gain it the other time. I don’t understand the fuss. Mostly balances out
- Daimanta 5y agoTo me it does matter as it messes up my biological clock. My body will tell me close to a week that I should or should not be sleeping, waking up, lunch or have dinner. The lost sleep and disorientation is real for me. Besides that, I hate people fidgeting with the clock. Stop DST permanently, please!
- nikolay 5y agoActually, you can't compensate for lack of sleep and oversleeping is not healthy either, so, you get dinged twice.
- graeme 5y agoMost people have some kind of sleep deficit. Catching up on sleep isn’t oversleeping. Iirc there are more heart attacks the day after the change resulting in less sleep, and less the day after the change resulting in more sleep.
- nikolay 5y agoThere were studies showing that there's no such thing as "catching up on sleep".
- balfirevic 5y agoPlease link them.
- nikolay 5y agoThey were posted here on HN - search for them!
- 5y ago
- 123jay7 5y ago
- VoodooJuJu 5y agoBoth permanent DST and twice-annual clock switching are bad. There is a third, and in my opinion, superior way: permanent standard time. The majority currently in favor of permanent DST will become a minority come winter, mark my words. And I hope it gets repealed just like it did in the 70's. Permanent standard time or bust.
- colinmhayes 5y agoThe sun would rise at 4:30 in the summer where I live with permanent standard time. No way I could live like that. Absolute non starter.
- Izkata 5y agoSame here, but 4:15. Way way too early. It kinda feels like a lot of people are unaware of just how far sunrise/sunset shifts over the course of the year in some areas. The only solution would be to decouple all of society from clocks, and that's just not going to happen, so there has to be a trade-off somewhere.
- Miner49er 5y agoWith permanent DST it's gonna rise at like 8:30 am on average at the latest in winter. That sounds way worse then it rising at 4:30 in the summer to me.
- bin_bash 5y agoIt wasn’t repealed. That law was temporary.
- odonnellryan 5y agoHonestly I used to work early and I enjoy going into work before the sun is up. I don't understand why you need the sun up when you're going to work unless you work outside. And if you do your hours would just change anyway no matter what is done.
- davemp 5y ago
- _ph_ 5y agoI was always against switching the time twice per year, as it tends to mess up the day rythm. But I am even more against permanent DST, as it is a big illusion. People live by the motion of the sun much more than they recognize. Winters are hell with permanent DST. This is why this is a bad idea. Permanent DST only will cause all time shedules to shift over time. If permanent standard time is not an option, the time shift two times a year is actually a working hack. The shift is messy, but the time is shifted in the part of the year when the sun is up at raising time. That is why it "works".
- Izikiel43 5y agoI'm not sure I follow, how would they be hell? In standard time in winter, it gets dark at 4pm, with this it would get dark at 5pm.