5 ms·
The loss of sixteen (16) minutes of office time twice a year has a cost, clearly. I will add that my rhythm takes a hit for at least a week on each shift too.
by rudyfink 18y ago
The loss of sixteen (16) minutes of office time twice a year has a cost, clearly. I will add that my rhythm takes a hit for at least a week on each shift too. I suspect other people share that cost too. That written, in my opinion, the cost is more than worth it.
In exchange for the cost of thirty-two (32) minutes I get ~eight (8) months of an extra hour of daylight later on in the day (~240 hours more). I'd argue that this has a benefit to people. Further, I'd argue this benefit outweighs the cost.
This article strikes me as only pointing out the thing that is seen and wholly ignoring the unseen. It is cute but reality is not nearly so simple. In the context of a company that makes monitoring software, this article makes sense. They produce a metric, their view is through that metric, and they report the metric.
- jcl 18y agoIf possible, it might be interesting to compare the data for Arizona with neighboring states. Apparently Arizona does not observe daylight savings time. While the conclusions from such a comparison may not necessarily apply to more northern states, it would give an additional point of reference. (It's a pity they don't have data for Indiana in 2005, which only went to daylight savings time in 2006...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_United_States#Daylight_saving_time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_United_States#Dayli...
- nuclear_eclipse 18y ago> Apparently Arizona does not observe daylight savings time. Neither does Indiana.