3 ms·
Absolutely not. The time that would stay is the bad one. With switch, we get reasonable half a years. Without it, it would be whole unreasonable year.
by watwut 8mo ago
Absolutely not. The time that would stay is the bad one.
With switch, we get reasonable half a years. Without it, it would be whole unreasonable year.
- recursive 8mo agoThe biggest unreasonability is switching at all. I admit other points of view, but switching back and forth is a compromise that seems far worse than just sticking with one. Either one.
- jerlam 8mo agoWe seem to be in the worst situation now where not only does the EU change their time twice a year, they change it on a different schedule than US/Canada. For a few weeks during the year, half of your meetings start at a different time. Everyone is confused.
- dzhiurgis 8mo agoNow add southern hemisphere
- asmosoinio 8mo agoWhy? Can't people adjust their schedules as needed? Schools don't have to always start at the same time? And many jobs also not? It's not like 9-17 work hours are set on stone?
- padjo 8mo agoAnd coordinating that change would be easier you think?
- asmosoinio 8mo agoCoordinating that change for the RELEVANT parties, yes. IMHO that's a tiny part of a society. Instead of everyone EVERYONE having to adjust clocks and their natural schedules. I think (and some studies agree with me) the stress and negative effects of that switching twice a year is much more on aggregate. I don't personally see any benefit from daylight savings. But I also live at around 60+ degrees North: at peak summertime there is 19 hours of full daylight (barely gets dark the other hours), wintertime less about 5. Daylight saving does not really make a dent.