Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving (gizmodo.com)
143 points by ourmandave 8 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 135 comments





This doesn't change anything right now -- it allows the California legislature to pick either PST or PDT:

https://votersedge.org/en/ca/ballot/election/area/73/measure...

The way it is now

Federal law sets standard time zones for each area of the country. California and other western states are in the Pacific Standard time zone. Current law requires the time of each zone to move forward by one hour from early March to early November each year during a period called Daylight Saving Time. During this period, sunrises and sunsets happen one hour later. Federal law lets states choose to stay on standard time all year long, but prevents states from having year-round Daylight Saving Time.

What if it passes?

Prop 7 would allow state lawmakers to vote on changing Daylight Saving Time. Lawmakers would be able to choose year-round Daylight Saving Time, if allowed by federal law. Any change would require support from two thirds of California’s Legislature. Until then, Prop 7 would keep California’s current Daylight Saving Time schedule.

Budget effect

Prop 7 would have no immediate effects. Impacts on state and local government would likely be very small.

edit: I think it is more of a referendum that Californians want a single timezone rather than they specifically want PDT.


Florida was looking into this as well and has the same Federal hurdle. "Sunshine Protection Act" http://www.wtxl.com/news/florida-governor-signs-bill-allowin...

It passed 60-40. The legislature would be foolish to ignore the electorate's clear intent.

CA has only a single timezone, the Pacific Timezone.


I don't think the voters intent is clear. The question was whether the legislature should be able to make the change not whether they should. If I lived in California I would have voted to provide them the option but that doesn't necessarily mean I think they should. I would expect further debate around the subject at the time legislation is introduced.

Let's accept your premise that a vote for the referendum was in all cases a vote for the change. The referendum requires 2/3rds of the representatives of the people to vote to affect the change. It can certainly be argued that since this level of support was included in the referendum and the referendum itself failed to garner this level of support then the representatives should not vote for the change.


  The referendum requires 2/3rds of the representatives of the people to vote to affect the change
1) this wasn't a referendum. It was a Legislative Statute.

2) it needed only a simple majority.

3) California DST implementation has been in violation of CA law for decades. CA law has been late April to late September since 1949.

4) to actually change DST still requires an additional 2/3rds majority vote in BOTH houses of the Legislature in the same session.


Yes, this is kind of the issue with a lot of things (props/measures) we get on the ballots. Some are worth a direct vote, others should be phrased in the way you're describing as "this is an issue we'd like you to take up, research, and debate".

I personally find it annoying that sometimes we end having to vote directly on things that really fall under the job of our representatives.


I think all democracies would benefit from referendums/petitions that simply force the legislature to put the issue up for debate/vote.

Prop 7 was submitted to voters by the legislature, since they couldn't do what they wanted without permission from the voters, because the law setting DST policy was from the voters, not the legislature.

Of course, federal action is still needed, too.


  the law setting DST policy was from the voters
Absolutely correct; this law was set by Initiative Statute in 1949... and has been flouted for decades now.

If the law was obeyed, DST would still start in April and end in September.


Federal action is only needed if they choose to go with PDT year-round rather than PST.

Right, but permanent daylight time is the whole motivation; reading the history and analysis of AB 807 (which put this on the ballot) as it went through the legislature is instructive.

But that wouldn't make sense, as it would put California four hours behind EDT during the summer, adding to the problem rather than removing.

I'm not sure which "problem" you're referring to exactly, but I don't think it's the same problem that the supporters of this law are trying to solve.

IANAL, but, I think they could also choose MST as a replacement without federal action (from some other comments I've read on the matter)

No, the feds set the zone boundaries; states can't switch zones without federal action.

There's been some suggestions that it might be easier for a state to get moved to a different zone rather than getting a permanent daylight exception (I think the former may be doable by regulation, while the latter definitely takes Congress.)


Time zones are set by the DOT, so any change like this likely requires federal action...

https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/procedure-moving-...

Now, not respecting Daylight Savings Time is another matter entirely, and I believe that California could decide to be permanently in PST w/o the approval of the DOT. What they can't do is change the dates for DST or decide to always observe it (which would effectively end up creating a new time zone).

https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/daylight-saving-t...


They have PST and PDT, depending on which part of the year it is. :)

It is kind of funny that it passed by less than the required % of votes in the legislature, though.

   it passed by less than the required % of votes in the legislature
No, it only needed simple majority.

Foolishness from the California legislature? Nahhhhh.

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness"

Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get over it.

[1]: https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/11/06/proposition-7-pas...


Agree, sending kids to school in the dark is a pretty weak 'think of the children' argument. If we REALLY cared about children, we'd start school later as numerous studies show a later start is better for learning and health. See the CDC's guidelines for optimal school start times, which is 8:30am or later: https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html

Then we start running into issues with the secondary/tertiary purpose of schools, daycare, which lets parents work normal 9-5 jobs more easily while having kids. If schools didn't start to 8:30-9 it'd be harder for parents to get to work.

And there's the real issue. Not about what's best for the kids, but what's convenient for the parents.

If the parents can't get to work by 9, don't you think their more limited job options could have a real effect on their kids?

Doesn't doing something good for the parents also help their children?

I mean, it's their parents, not some random strangers.


As a person who works in education, I feel like many decisions are made this way. It's rarely about what is best for the kids.

Maybe rethinking 9-5 is more productive to society than forcing everything else around it. Lots of schools start each day in the 7:00 hour.

Maybe rethinking both parents working is more productive to society.

If the expectation was that one parent cared for the children and the household, that would drastically shrink the supply of workers, and force wages up, recognizing the actual, formerly unpaid cost of maintaining a household and raising children.


Formerly unpaid? It was paid just as much in the past as it would be in the hypothetical future, in exactly the same way.

We had exactly that in 1950s, but then the feminism happened </s>

And since we are at it, let's make women be the SAH parents? Seriously, that would move society 50+ years back. When there were no washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc., maintaining a household was certainly a job for one person, but fortunately we moved past that and, at least in theory, your 46th chromosome does not affect your ability to choose a job anymore.

Yeah, sorry. There was nothing in there that implied gender.

I know a number of people who work with children in education and there is a very clear change happening in the last 20 years with how prepared children are when starting school. The average amount of actual parenting time many children are getting now has dropped dramatically and it is showing in behavior and basic education preparedness. Of course it is the right of either parent to work but society has now made both parents working a requirement in many places, not an option... and it seems the fallout is affecting the children.

If you're concerned about society then the focus needs to be on preparing the next generation better. Either you structure it so that single income families are an option, or you dump a lot more into the education system to make up for the lack of input kids are getting from their parents.


There's no particular reason work should start so early, either, other than the perpetual punctuality pogrom promulgated by lark against owl.

idk about you, but I get to pick my hours, as long as they add up to forty. even with this freedom (and being a night owl), I find myself wanting to get to work by 9:00 anyway. any later and I just get home too late in the evening. if anything, I sometimes try to get to work half an hour to an hour early. I can't imagine there are too many parents who want to shift their schedule to get home even later.

Given the same option I ended up with 10:30 to 7pm, but then again I don’t have kids.

Don't forget it's not just 9-5 office jobs that have issues with later school start times. Service jobs like restaurants/fast food are in arguably a rougher situation because they need workers when they have customers (and some time before for prep work).

Not to mention teachers not wanting to work until 5:30 every day. Unfortunately, school starts at the time it does only to the benefit of adults, and the detriment of students.

IIRC, the teacher's union was one of the primary reasons that the recent bill that would have shifted school start times later was defeated.

Coordination problem; people depend on things happening at certain times relative to each other, and they won't synchronize unless "the" time itself changes. e.g. people might have a system where they can drop their kids off and then go to work, but if their work is suddenly offset by an hour but the school isn't...

You can always unilaterally decide to do things on a different schedule; the problem is getting everyone else to do it too.


Overall it would be better for the students and it fixes safety concerns, which I agree is a weak argument but 'for the children' is always a great political card to play. The issue is I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students.

> I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students.

Package it with pay increases and/or shortening the day (also good for students) so that teachers still get off at the same time, and it'll go over fine.

Even aside from that, teachers aren't the majority of the electoral base for either local school boards or state lawmakers, so if it's important enough to non-teachers, it will get mandated whatever teachers prefer.


Yes. Teachers unions would never agree to have to start later in the day.

Why?

Good question. My wife was a teacher and they like getting off early. Hard to change something that’s entrenched.

When teachers are directly exposed to the light of the sun, they burst into flames. ;)

The local TV news used to run the same story every DST change.

Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark?

The only advantage of the former is that it gives the sun a chance to warm up the air a bit more so it's not quite as cold in the morning.


> Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark?

There is no place in California where the amount of daylight is so short that kids would walk home in the dark as long as school starts around 8-9, regardless of whether they use PST or PDT during the winter.

The choices are, if school start times stay so that they are before parent work start times, between walking both to and from school in the light, and walking to school in the dark and from school in the light.

If it were a choice between walking to school in the dark or walking home from school in the dark, walking to school in the dark would be worse, because the school day is shorter than the adult work day. The kids going to school overlap with the morning commute traffic. The kids coming home beat the evening commute traffice.


> Like walking to school in the dark is worse than walking home from school in the dark?

Actually, yes.

Not just California, but starting an hour later also lets the temperature rise. That's not an undue consideration when you have snow and ice.


Not sure where you are, but where I'm from (Northeast US) the walk to and from school were usually in daylight hours, unless one happened to be 1-2 hours early or late.

It all depends. Usually schools stagger arrival times to maximize bus trips, especially in urban areas where desegregation or integration with public transit required suboptimal routing (from a distance POV).

My neighbors kid has a middle schooler who starts at 7:30 and a 1st grader who starts at 9:30!

Personally, I went to a rural district with an 8:05 start time. The bus picked me up at 6:40AM, and I typically didn't see daylight outside of school in December.


Arizona has not been doing daylight savings for years, and they don't have this problem. Really any area with 350+ days of sun shine a year should abandon DLS.

The day length changes less as you get closer to the equator. It's not nearly a big a deal in Tuscon as it is in San Francisco (or Eureka).

This is a great example of why local rule is generally preferable.

The difference is some people are talking about DST year-round (again). Arizona is never on DST.

The Japanese don't have DST, despite Japan having a similar latitude span to the lower 48. Somehow, even the kids in northerly Hokkaido manage just fine.

> The Japanese don't have DST

They are in the wrong timezone, in my opinion. The sun sets super early in the day. If I was the dictator of the planet, I'd set japan's clocks forward by two hours year round. Then the sun would set at 18:40 instead of 16:40 today.

Getting off work and having some daylight is pretty important, IMHO. It is quite hard to do in Japan.


There is an interesting map[1] that shows how much the time is off in each location in the world vs solar time.

Japan is indeed ahead of solar time, as opposed to many other places on their longitude. (Though perhaps not by two hours).

Interestingly, many more places are behind their solar time then places that are ahead of it.

[1] http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-t...


It's also pretty annoying in the summer when the sun comes up at 4:30.

But the Japanese allow 5 year old kids to walk to school by themselves! They clearly don't love their kids! </s>

Well sure, but maybe instead of changing the schedule of all schools in the state (which would in turn affect the schedules of parents etc.) it would be easier to just not change the clock?

Using the statement 'well maybe school shouldn't start so early then' as an argument in favour of making schools start earlier seems rather contradictory.


It’s not an argument in favor, but a defense to an argument against. The reasoning goes that a lot of other things would be better served by being moved an hour earlier, even if school wouldn’t.

That said, even for K12 students, I’d say it’s a give and take. Waking up and going out in the dark each morning does sound bad for mood and potentially for circadian rhythms. But school gets out at 3PM, and on the shortest days of the year, the sun sets around 5PM. That leaves only 2 hours to potentially spend outdoors in the sun, at best; after-school activities can easily consume much or all of that time, not to mention homework. Or even if you spend all day indoors, the earlier the sun sets, the sooner your body starts producing more melatonin and making you feel tired; robust artificial lighting can help, but then it’s harder when you are ready to start winding down for the day. And then there’s seasonal affective disorder (Google it). In all these cases, going from 2 to 3 hours of sunlight after school would be a big help.


This has always been an odd argument to me. Does abolishing DST also abolish flashlights, streetlamps, reflective clothing...? What did children do before DST came around to save them? Children have been attending school longer than DST has been around.

The argument about students walking in the dark (however you feel about it) is in regards to the _winter_ months, when there has never been DST. Asking what they did before DST came around to save them is asking what happens right now. That is, it's not dark when they walk to school. It'll only be an issue (if you think it's an issue) if and only if DST is enacted _year round_.

What is the point of moving the time zone by 1 hour (keeping permanent DST instead of normal time) and then adjusting times, like school hours, to compensate for it? Couldn't one just go back to normal time instead?

Only if literally everything adjusts to compensate. People proposing a permanent move to daylight savings time with some things moving to compensate are expecting the majority of things to keep happening at the same clock time (resulting in advantages like more evening sunlight).

I don't doubt that is the expectation, but I think they are underestimating how much we arrange our daily life by the sunlight. While in the summer months the longer day length makes the concept DST working - in a sense the DST time change is a hack that somewhat works, the things get more tough in the winter, where morning brightness is very important. And also in the summer, at least for me, it is an illusion. Because the one hard constraint is, when it gets dark and cool enough to sleep. And here in Germany, that means around midnight, when DST is active. And that of course pushes the rest of my day cycle around in consequence.

> Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what?

Even in the U.S....Washington, Montana, Michigan, Maine...this is fact of life stuff.


Maybe it's trying to be funny, but this article is the stupidest take on this issue that I've seen.

Yup. Ranting about losing one hour, once? It's either a flat attempt at humor or the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

It might be just an hour to you, but collectively the residents of California stand to lose 4.5 millennia!

(But yes, it was the idea of losing time that convinced me this article is either a humor or misguided)


Sums up Gizmodo in my experience.

Grew up in a region without day light saving, I really don’t see the point of changing clocks twice every year. I’d be very glad to see it getting abandoned

The real kicker is snow: in the winter months, if you get snow, you really want as much sun in the morning as possible to aid snowmelt and other snow clearing steps. In the summer months, moving extra sunlight to the afternoon makes much more sense. DST is a compromise that gets you morning sun in winter and afternoon sun in summer.

What’s wrong with just getting up earlier, on your own terms? Or just stay on DST time zone forever?

Most people don't determine their own schedules. They have to get to work, or class by a specific time. Even independent contractors have to accommodate their clients' schedules.

Companies can decide what schedule makes better sense then. Or if needed, better rules can be established to solve those problems.

Even with day light saving, people don't work on the same schedule. Plenty of them need to get up before sun rise or work until late night no matter what the clock says.


People don't work at the same time, but the time they work is determined by other people's schedules. That's why janitors often work in the middle of the night, and school starts before work, and the doughnut guy has to get to the shop early in the morning.

By the way, I would also love to get rid of clock changes twice a year. I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. The drawbacks of winter morning darkness are real, and will likely not be solved without DST. I just also think that they're not worth screwing with the clock.

If I lived in a more northerly latitude, maybe I'd change my tune. But as it is, I value daylight at 5pm way more than at 7am. The yearly "fall back" of DST is like an insult added to the injury of winter.


Living in a relatively northern latitude with fairly fixed hours far east in a timezone, I used to really value DST (though would just as soon have been in the next timezone east). Now, between lots of travel and flexible schedule, I don't care that much though I still prefer whatever tilts toward more evening light.

Proposition 7 doesn't immediately change anything. It authorizes the state legislature to change the DST rules if authorized by federal law.

Reading the text of the revised law, it does seem to emphasize the possibility of going to year-round DST as opposed to year-round Standard Time (which is what I would prefer).

One thing I'm not clear about is how the state legislature didn't already have this authority. Prop 7 doesn't change the state constitution, just the state Government Code.

https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2018/general/pdf/topl.pdf#prop7


> One thing I'm not clear about is how the state legislature didn't already have this authority. Prop 7 doesn't change the state constitution, just the state Government Code.

The relevant Government Code provision establishing DST was adopted by the voters (not the Legislature on its own) and, therefore, the legislature can't change it unilaterally, only by sending an amending statute to the voters.


   it passed by less than the required % of votes in the legislature
... but existing law (1949 Prop 12) has been ignored for decades anyway.

Will the lost hour disrupt the time-space continuum?

Curious to see a Californian writing for (supposedly) tech-savvy publication echoing an old English superstition: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-...


I think the first half of the article is written sarcasticly.

Already been tried in the '70s and it sucked: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/30/the-year-daylight-sav...

> general consensus is that Daylight Saving Time is better for farmers, and energy consumption, as well as being less disruptive to children who are particularly affected by the ping-ponging of the clock in the spring and fall.

I think the author is arguing against getting rid of DST? In which case, what he wrote above (which BTW is a link that goes to an article that backs up not a single thing he said) actually goes against his point. It says that if we stay on permanent DST, it's better for everyone.


The annoying thing about this proposition is that it proposes allowing the legislature to attempt to move to permanent PDT… which requires changing our timezone, something which requires an action from federal congress. If we had simply chosen to go to permanent PST, we could stay in the summer time zone and make the change without involving congress since it doesn't require changing timezone.

Personally, I'd much prefer PST over PDT, which gives us sunlight later into the day.


So when the US East Coast springs forward 1 hour California is then going to be 4 hours behind? That's gonna make West Coast travel even worse.

The opposite. California is going to UTC-7 year-round. The East Coast varies between UTC-5 and UTC-4. California is effectively going to be in the exact same time zone as Arizona, which is in Mountain Standard Time and does not recognize DST.

Honestly, we should just abolish the Pacific time zone and then abolish DST on the West Coast. Rename Mountain Standard Time to Western Standard Time.


I love the symmetry of that. Western, Central, and Eastern Standard Times.

I can't imagine people in the northern reaches of Mountain time would be pleased about never having DST. They'd likely be better off moving to CST (so no DST).

Sure! Or they could still have DST in the former Mountain zone and not in the former Pacific zone.

US law allows for states to opt in or out of DST. (Also, Indian reservations, because they're treated as quasi-sovereign nations in some ways.) A WST would probably entail WA, OR, and CA opting out with AZ while MT, ID, WY opt in.


the obvious follow on from that is to abolish timezones all together, all use UTS, and simply change the times we go to work to match local conditions

No that's just awful, now instead of having a defined timezone boundary we have a slow bleed between different areas and we have to look up to know what a businesses hours are if we're not close enough to follow the same customary time instead of just knowing what timezone they're in.

So now we're dealing with a patchwork of 'zones of similar customary times' as areas with similar solar times move towards a similar clock so businesses can coordinate and trade easily with local businesses. It'll be a mess so states will probably organize together to make things simpler and have a similar set of hours across the state. These pseudo-timezones will be slightly better and states around a similar longitude will naturally order into a similar set of customary times because their local solar times are roughly the same. Now we've got pretty much the EXACT same situation as the current timezones including a generalized offset from UTC so we gain nothing.

What exactly do you suppose we gain from abolishing timezones?


but isn't that what you have to do now, look up what timezone a business is in. The only difference with this scheme is that you don't need to convert between timezones to figure out when they're open in your timeezone

I live in the southern hemisphere and 'work' online in the northern - I have to deal with the mess that is 4 different combinations of timezones every year, and calendaring systems that are unable to handle the idea of knowing WHERE a meeting is going to be held so they can get the time right

Really though people should change their work hours to match their timezones - I live a long way south, we have long twilight in the summers and tiny days in the winter, when it gets dark at 4:30 because we're squashed up against a timezone boundary - I have to get up in the dark anyway, why not move our winter work hours so we get a couple of hours daylight during the winter? it would help with the Vit D issues


> but isn't that what you have to do now, look up what timezone a business is in.

Not really I know some of our offices are in India UTC +5:30 and some are in Texas UTC -6 which are +11:30 and -1 respectively. With the current setup most timezones follow state boundaries in the US so I know when it is there roughly by the location. In the 'no timezone' setup (which is really just timezones without the top down mapping) I have to hope they have business hours posted somewhere convenient to look up instead of just finding their rough location.

The rest of that sounds principally a failure of tools than anything else. Today you could just set all meeting times using UTC and let the users UI take care of the mapping to local time.

But again my biggest issue with the no timezones system is we'll just be getting rid of the defined boundaries in favor of undefined boundaries because each area WILL wind up on roughly the current timezones anyways because they roughly match to solar time as is.

> Really though people should change their work hours to match their timezones - I live a long way south, we have long twilight in the summers and tiny days in the winter, when it gets dark at 4:30 because we're squashed up against a timezone boundary - I have to get up in the dark anyway, why not move our winter work hours so we get a couple of hours daylight during the winter? it would help with the Vit D issues

This is more an argument for more flexible working hours than most anything else.


Just setting up meeting times in UTC doesn't work right now if the nominal location of the meeting switches to/from daylight time (the actual UTC time changes)

I think that my solution to timezones simply is "more flexible working hours"


"So You Want To Abolish Time Zones" (https://qntm.org/abolish) has a good exploration of the issues with that.

Some clarification: California is currently not going to do anything in changing DST. This measure doesn't even propose making DST permanent or switching to PDT all the time, it just allows the legislature to talk about changing it.

Actually, it allows the Legislature to actually change it, provided the feds allow it. And it was submitted by the Legislature, which probably wouldn't seek permission if it didn't intend to use it.

No. Under this plan, in the winter, CA would be 2 hours behind the East Coast, and the summer, 3 hours behind.

Several of the New England states are contemplating a move to year-round Atlantic Time, which would keep them synced 3 hours ahead of California.

I’d love that. There’s no reason why a city at the latitude of Boston should have to endure 4:30 sunsets.


I doubt it will ever happen because you're now a different timezone from NYC. But I'd absolutely consider voting for abolishing daylight savings if New England moved to Atlantic Time.

Honestly, if it happens, I bet the rest of the West Coast follows suit, and then the rest of the country.

All of this is patently silly.

The sun will rise and set at exactly the same times it always has. All you are doing is changing your clock and deciding when to do things based on what the clock says. Farmers don't care- they get up and work based on when it's sunny, not based on what the clock on the wall says.

If you want children to be in school during daylight hours, modify the school schedules. If you want to get that extra round of golf in, go to work early and then leave work early. But don't drag the rest of society along with you so that you can pretend you're not doing anything differently!

Ten years after DST dies, everyone will remember how silly it all was and how they were always opposed to the madness.


Unfortunately 9-5 is deeply ingrained in our culture as the "standard working hours", despite the 8-hour workday being a relic of the past.

The real problem with the time change is it happens over a single night.

When you're actually living in nature, waking up with the sunrise, you will gradually wake up earlier or later as the seasons shift.

If our time changed gradually on a more natural pace it would be a whole lot less disruptive and people wouldn't be losing daylight from their lives. We have the technology today to make that happen. If everyone's clocks are computerized and sycnhronized, we wouldn't even notice as minutes are quietly added/removed by the system across many days.


Under this system, either some minutes will be longer than others, or we'll have leap minutes every night. This sounds more complicated, not less.

It might achieve the goal of having a sunrise at the same wall clock time every day, but I don't really see a purpose for that. Sunsets will still vary.


I made no claim of it being less complicated, and I am not aware of the general public's primary issue with the time changing being one of complexity.

If the clocks are automated, nobody really notices the gradual change.

My perception is the public's major complaint is the jarring disturbance to their lives an overnight +-1-hour change has.


As a person who works on software that cares about what time it is, and already struggles with the existing DST rules, I think I would change careers if this were adopted. Measuring the elapsed time between two instants would become extremely difficult.

We're already in a world where you really need to rely on external date+time libraries to apply a locale-specific temporally-varying offset from UTC.

I don't see it as being a significant implementation difference if that offset changes a smaller amount at midnight on a short sequence of days vs. a larger amount at midnight on just one of those days.

Either way you need to be leap-aware.


The amount of information embedded in leap-awareness would be significantly different. Right now DST is modelled as two different time zones that are switched between. If you want to handle it the same way, I guess you'd need 365 (366?) "time zones" per time zone. I can't see how you can argue that's not a significant implementation difference.

Let's say we wanted to turn it into a gradient where we instead shifted five minutes per night, so we need 12 days to transition an hour.

You could just add a transition countdown field "-" to the "S" and "D" timezones being transitioned to, dropping it once the transition is finished.

e.g. for Pacific time:

PST -> PD-12T -> PD-11T -> PD-10T ... PD-1T -> PDT and in reverse: PDT -> PS-12T -> PS-11T -> PS-10T ... PS-1T -> PST

If you already have the indirection of the table, it doesn't increase implementation complexity to put some more rows in it.

I don't see where you got 365 zones per time zone, unless you thought I was proposing we change the time a little bit every single day of the year. That's entirely unnecessary to eliminate the practical nuisance of the sudden 1-hour jump.


The problem with gradual shifts is that physical clocks are pretty dumb and changing the clock once every 6 months is easier than 4+ changes over the course of a month.

William Willett, who was a promoter of DST in Britain, proposed advancing the clock by twenty minutes on four Sundays in April and taking it back twenty minutes on four Sundays in September (http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/willett.html), sort of a compromise between continuous adjustment and the one-shot that we have now.

I hope you mean either three Sundays or 15 minutes, otherwise you don't get an hour.

It's enough of a pain to change all the clocks twice a year, I'd hate to have to do it 8 times.


No, four Sundays and twenty minutes. I was surprised too.

I don't understand all the hubbub but I am for this. I bounce between the West Coast and the East Coast on a regular basis.

If DST is made permanent in California then Southern California will have the same nearly the same sunrise as Georgia when they change their clocks back. Clearly Georgia makes it through the fall and Winter A-OK every year.

Is the concern mostly squared around Central through Northern California?


Archive of stopdst.com:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170420043300/http://stopdst.co...

No novel facts, just a pretty list of statements against Daylight Saving Time.


Here's a tool I built to calculate how much sunlight you get thanks to DST.

https://daylight-saving-time.muehlemann.com


Anecdotally, my kids (all under 5), have already decided to ignore the time change.

It will be so nice to not have to change the time on all our servers twice a year!

I saw a good argument that adjusting the time to keep daylight as long as possible during waking hours is an amazingly healthy thing.

Any decrease in daylight time dramatically increases rates of depression.


1) Nothing is changing unless federal law changes. So basically, nothing is changing

2) For those who have calls with people in Europe this would be a big plus since the EU looks likely to go to DST year round. If this happens and California keeps switching then UK/ROI/Portugal will be 9 hours off from CA half the year, and western Europe 10 hours off. It's hard enough to schedule calls with an 8 hour difference.


Why would they switch to PDT year round as opposed to just switching to MST ?

PDT and MST are the same time all year long, as far as I know, so there's no effective difference. I suppose this means that other places in Pacific time that have DST part of the year would be on the same labeled time zone as California part of the year for cultural and historical reasons.

This is probably the most content-free article I have ever read.

Is it satire? Are they being facetious? I honestly can’t tell if they’re serious. They don’t make an argument against permanent DST.

"This is clearly stupid, and something I’ve personally felt keenly since at least 1994, when I wrote to my then Congressman Pete Geren and asked why he supported Daylight Saving Time."

That passage marks the point where they admit it is satire. It's about half way through.


I have no idea. It seems like the author wants permanent Standard time?

Agree, what is it even trying to say? They even reference consensus that permanent DST is preferable, while on preceding and following lines make what I hesitate to even call an "argument":

> Never mind the fact that permanent DST means they never get that hour back or that in the winter children would be headed to the bus in darkness every morning.


Not only is it content-free, but it's either a) wildly inaccurate or b) horribly incompetent satire, at least the bits about the hour being gone forever.

Welcome to Gawker subsidiary websites.

Yeah. 2 mins of my life I'll never get back.

connects twitter account to make a comment

doesn't do a thing




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: