3 ms·
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 t
by 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.