Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Opinion: Standard Time all year round is the healthy choice (theglobeandmail.com)
384 points by pseudolus on Nov 2, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 277 comments



> Changing our clocks twice a year has little benefit, economic or otherwise

I've lived in 2 different places in the world that did not do DST, and I have to respectfully disagree for many cases. In the summer the sun would rise before 5am and set by 6:30 or 7pm. This does curtain outside activities. Sitting outside at a restaurant, maybe having a drink, is much easier to do while the sun is up, the bugs are at a bay, etc. Or maybe a BBQ in the backyard etc, all are much easier to do when there's natural sunlight. (then let's talk about sports games, no major leagues but kids sports, etc, etc)

So yes we could all start getting up earlier and say going to work earlier...Say starting work at 7am and leaving at 4pm...but this is what DST does for us.

Caveat:

It greatly depends on where you are in the timezone, and how far north you are. Growing up in northern Canada the sun set at 11pm and rose at 4am, so it did make little difference.

2nd Caveat:

Yes full time DST could be right for some places. But! That's damn confusing if someone has a different time through the year. When I lived in Indiana they didn't do DST, so the time didn't change. And it felt like half the phone calls outside the start started with "what time is it now." So there's something to be said for consistency. :/


DST as we have it seems suited to a world that still has a third of the population working outside in the fields. A world where work start time and sunrise were inextricably linked.

Most people would be far better served by our timezones sticking with summer time year round so we can have brighter evenings. I'm far enough north that one of my commutes will be in darkness, by skewing it to the morning one when it's around the equinox I am guaranteed no daylight in personal time: I'm either commuting, in a permanently illuminated office, or at home -- in winter darkness.

I would be far happier with more evening light.


It's pretty unhealthy to wake up in the dark. And schools generally let out in the early afternoon, so summer time would just send kids to school in the dark for the winter.


If you're at far enough north latitudes you don't have much of a choice; daylight isn't long enough in winter and there's not enough of it to go around to all times when you'd want it. Optimizing for daylight in the morning when the earliest risers are waking, at the expense of having it go dark soon after lunchtime, isn't a great trade-off.


To put some concrete numbers around that, by meaningless cosmic coincidence, it happens that around the 45 latitude line, the summer/winter oscillation occurs at nearly exactly 1/3rd and 2/3rds, that is, in winter you get 8 hours of daylight and 16 of darkness, and in summer you get 16 hours of daylight and 8 hours of darkness.

The 45th runs through the northern United States, putting nearly all of Canada in an even more extreme environment, and runs through the middle of Western Europe and the southern part of Eastern Europe. So it's a very significant portion of the northern hemisphere that is subject to these conditions, both by geography and by population centers.

So, it's not just a few stragglers at the poles or something; it's a major chunk of civilization.

As it happens, not much of the land mass of the southern hemisphere is south of 45S. See https://www.mapsofindia.com/worldmap/latitude-longitude.html , for instance.


Combined population of Europe and Canada is under 600 million. While it’s certainly a large part of this website’s audience, I think it is a stretch to call it a “major chunk of civilization”.


It's closer to 800 million, and "major" doesn't mean "majority".


> earliest risers are waking

I don't think there's any reason to turn this into an us vs them thing. Where I live, at only about 45 degrees, permanent DST would have the sun rising at 8:50 in the dead of winter. I don't think I've ever known anyone who wakes later than that.


> I don't think I've ever known anyone who wakes later than that.

There are a lot of us. And considering all of the ways society makes life harder for night owls (including being incredulous that we even exist, as shown here), I'm surprised permanent DST is even on the table. But I'll take it.


Ayep, somehow you're lazy if you prefer sleeping at 2AM and waking at 10AM, and hardworking if you prefer sleeping at 10PM and waking at 6AM.


I am a night owl, and permanent DST is worse. I would not like that. Usually for us, night owls, it is hard to switch from standard time to dst as we need to wake up one hour earlier. The early riser society is already against us. On winter time, because of all the darkness at north (I live in Finland), it would be hard to get up as the sun is not helping. Standard time during winters at least helps a bit as you can wake up with some sun light. Sure the downside is that it is dark after work. But for me it would be dark, no matter what. I am not leaving my work at 2pm to enjoy the light, which is gone at 4pm. On summer it is never dark, so you can jog at 2am just fine.


To be fair, humans are wired to generally get up when the sun comes up. There’s nothing wrong with staying up late and getting up late, but society has kind of settled on “things happen early in the morning”, and considering biology, I don’t think that’s unreasonable.


From what I heard, that's not true. Due to some ancient group of people being "on guard duty", while others not, the night owls seems just to derive from that group of people that was on guard duty. Guaranteed this is a just a voice I heard, it explains why my grandfather, my mother, me and my daughter all wake up late and prefer going to bed late.

And to be clear, we adapted to the sleep time of my daughter, not the opposite (it's the only way to get sleep as a parent)


Isn’t that because you live very far west in your time zone (eg. Bordeaux)? In the true center of a time zone at the 45th parallel I’d expect 0800-1600 daylight on the winter solstice.


At some point places far enough north are just going to have to adjust hourly schedules by the season anyway. Daylight vs standard time doesn't fix it.


You do not have to be that far north. In Italy, which is pretty much the optimal latitude for DST and also very close to the "right" longitude for its time zone, the sun rises around 8am in the winter, which would be 9am with year-round DST. Schools start between 8am and 8:30am (the latter for elementary school), which would be dark.


Not to try to take this conversation off-topic, but there are some reasonable arguments for starting schools later too; it's not like the time schools starts is immutable and we have to design our time system around that


IIRC the flip side is we waste a lot of energy by allocating the hour of sunlight to the morning where many people are still asleep vs. the afternoon when almost everyone is awake and thus needs to turn on lights and heat.


Maybe a long time ago when lights actually used a lot of energy. For me, it's all about the heat. And if my family gets up in the dark, when it's coldest, and the heat pump turns on, that's probably my biggest energy draw of the day. If I can wait just an hour for the sun to come up and the air to become even a few degrees warmer, my heat pump just became a lot more efficient.


The heating system is on all day, is it not? Why does the clock make a difference? I guess if you have no pets you might turn it down while you're not home but it still has to stay on some to keep the pipes from freezing.


During the night, most people are under blankets, and so the temperature doesn't need to be as high. If people wake up earlier in the morning, it is colder when they get out of bed. They then turn up the thermostat in the morning, and never turn it back down as the day goes on. When Indiana implemented DST in 2006, power consumption increased by ~1%.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-daylight-sav...


Programmable thermostat set to a lower temperature at night. It saves a ton of energy.


I think the point is few places need heat as much during the day as they do at night. Do they?

Just look at the daily high/low. The low is at night.

This would be a neat graphic. What does this do to the average temperature morning and evening.


Common architectural pattern in northern Europe is externally insulated masonry buildings that have significant amount of mass inside the thermal envelope. In such buildings there is enough time-delay in temperature changes that the time of heating does not matter much. And while heat-pumps have a higher coefficient of performance when temperature difference is smaller, this is overwhelmed by pricing difference of peak vs off-peak energy.


> This would be a neat graphic.

my utility company actually provides a graph of low/avg/high temperature and power consumption for each day of the billing period. it's a great way to see how your heating/cooling schedule affects your bill.

I think most people sleep better when the ambient temperature is a few degrees cooler than they want their house during the day. so an extra hour in bed during the coldest part of the day could save some energy, probably marginal though.


Weather Underground (wunderground.com) shows a line graph of temperature (and many other options as well) and the low is almost always around sunrise. Lack of sun means decline, sun shining means increase.


> DST as we have it seems suited to a world that still has a third of the population working outside in the fields. A world where work start time and sunrise were inextricably linked.

I think this origin of DST has been debunked, and it doesn't even make sense. If it were to suit those who worked in the fields, then we would have DST in winter when the sun sets early (4pm here)!

Where I live (heavy farming community), the sun sets at 9pm in summer. Without daylight time it would set at 8pm. A lot of restaurants/businesses close at 9pm. Working the fields till sunset means you don't get to go enjoy your time anywhere after work.

Furthermore, if your work is linked to sunrise and sunset, then having daylight or not is relatively irrelevant. You'll follow the sun no matter what your watch is telling you the time is.


Working the fields till sunset means you don't get to go enjoy your time anywhere after work.

By design. Farmers worked hard all summer because they'd be largely shut in during the winter. That was the time for rest, repair, and preparation for next summer.

It's only recently, with the large-scale mechanization of farming that the notion of a farmer working sunup to sundown became strange.


Cattle don't care about DST. The only thing it dies for farmers is screw up their delivery schedule.


Around the equinox sunrise is probably around 8:30-9am here, sunset around 3:30-4pm. Twilight I guess an hour each way.

That makes sense when you need daylight to work - which is back when far more worked outside. Core business hours and timezones seem to fit around that minimum daylight. It makes a lot less sense to tie daylight hours, when they are in short supply, to the time now most of us are in permanently illuminated offices and factories.


> Around the equinox

Solstice, surely? At the equinox the sun should rise and set at the same hour (on a 12-hour clock).


Why don't you go to work an hour earlier?

Now, of course not everybody gets to choose their working hours; but chances are, with the loss of productivity in the early and dark winter mornings, those that don't get to choose get their shifts moved an hour later, negating any supposed benefit.

Some people take for granted that they can wake up and function in pitch black just as well, despite never having tried that. Where I'm from, if it were permanent DST year around, at the end of this month the sun wouldn't rise until 10 in the morning - and I'm as close to the equator you can get in this country! (Now of course it's not pitch black right until the sunrise, but if the sun rises at 10, it is pitch black at 8).


> Why don't you go to work an hour earlier?

Because I can't. The companies I've worked for have all scheduled required hours according to common business hours.

> Now, of course not everybody gets to choose their working hours

Only a tiny fraction of the population gets to set their own hours.


But common business hours are set, as the name says, by the common business. And many things in our day to day life in the end are determined by the sun. So if there is a permanent offset in the wall clock, business hours are going to shift to compensate. So changing the time zone might have a short-term impact, but long-term, will be compensated away. Most people have difficulties to raise in the dark, so the day to day schedule will be adjusted so that they have to raise in the dark only for a short part in the year, like 2 months. A time setting which would mean to get up in the dark for 4+ months is going to trigger a compensation.

And of course, as a consequence, French people do many things "later" than in Germany, be it work, lunch or dinner times.


>Only a tiny fraction of the population gets to set their own hours.

Well, yes. I was thinking more of flextime. From what I've seen, relatively few people come in as early as possible, even though statistically speaking they should be 50-50 on the DST issue (and favour more daylight after working hours).


K-12 school start times don’t flex. Before-care and dropping off early at daycare cost money.


When I get the opportunity I have done exactly that. Despite being a natural night owl with dislike of mornings, I'd get in very early - 6:30-7:30 to get an early finish.

When I'm stuck with "traditional" business hours there's essentially no daylight outside of work hours, for a month or so either side of the equinox.


Because our society requires time coordination for most things... stores need to be open so people can go to them, businesses need to be open at the same time so deals can be made, coworkers need to work together, schools need to be open when parents are working, etc.


"DST as we have it seems suited to a world that still has a third of the population working outside in the fields. A world where work start time and sunrise were inextricably linked."

I don't get it. If sunrise is what matters, DST is irrelevant. As someone said, the cows don't consult the clock when they need milking.


Back in communist time people used to work 7-15h, or even 6-14h. Why not just return to that? Then you have the whole afternoon again. Here 8-16h is still considered the norm, but looks like we're importing the american 9-5pm, not sure why.


Lots of we Americans do the same, not 9-5. I've worked several places where I did 7AM to 3PM, and did just fine. As you said, the advantage is freeing up some time in the afternoon and evening. Some companies are nasty about 9-5 butts-in-seats, but the better ones are usually flexible (particularly if you make meetings you need to and show yourself to be competent).


It’s more about when school opens and closes and not business hours.


Either way. Personally, I find it silly that we should change out time keeping because we do things at x o'clock.

If the causes of our schedule don't change, over time we will drift back to the same thing only with a different digit on the clock. Then, I guess we can repeat the shifting excercise.


And schools open at the earliest time they can expect the pupils to be awake. And that is mostly determined by sunrise.


Well, I believe the way it is commonly done in some places is that the openings are staggered so they can run the buses three times. So whether the sun is up depends on which grade you are in.


if only.

where I live, school opens at the earliest time teachers and parents can be awake due to schools not being big enough to accommodate the amount of pupils, children be damned.


My primary school had morning and afternoon shifts rotating every week.


> when it's around the equinox I am guaranteed no daylight in personal time

Do you not get a weekend?


Do we really need the HN pedantry of specifying every nth detail like "on working days" in a sentence when I am talking of working practice? That should be enough to imply work days. :)


For every person who enjoys the extra hour of sun in the summer, there's a person who detests an extra hour of darkness in the morning in winter.

And I'll also find you one who doesn't like late sunsets. Some people do not eat dinner prior to sunset.

Living in northern climates, we have the sun setting at 9pm in summer. No one here is going to be impacted if it sets at 8pm.

Personally, the only people I know who like permanent daylight time are those who live in a system where the clock changes. I've lived in and interacted with people in countries where they have permanent standard time, and they never expressed a desire to switch their clocks by one hour permanently. I think those who advocate permanent daylight time are the ones seeking an unnatural solution.

Let's simply acknowledge that everyone has a preference, and there's no objective winner here. Switching to permanent daylight means your location will be out of whack with the concept of time zones. Most of the world either switches their clock or has permanent standard time. Having your locale be permanent daylight will make for really weird global time zone maps, and will break the notion of "if you travel east beyond a certain point, the time zone will shift by one hour."


Global time zone maps are already really weird. There are plenty of places where traveling east doesn’t change the time zone for thousands of miles, or changes it by something other than one hour.


Living in the EU I can say that the opinion of most people is: stop this madness but if possible align with neighbor countries and perhaps prefer a bit more sun after work, in this order.


AFAIK France decided to keep permanent DST from 2021. I hope my country (Italy) does the same. We don't center our day around 12:00, it's more like 13:00 or later.


Which would be odd, if true (haven't heard anything like that from my French colleagues). As France is in the same time zone as Germany, even outside of DST, it is basically in a zone of permanent DST. When in DST, it is shifted 2 hours versus the sun position. Actually the true noon for the non-DST middle European time zone is at the eastern border of Germany. So whole Germany and France are "ahead" of the time even without DST.


> "there's no objective winner here"

To a large degree I agree with what you're saying (you know what they say about opinions), but the last couple years I've put a lot more effort into improving my sleep habits after reading Matthew Walker's book "Why We Sleep". Tons of science and data-driven conclusions.

But what I found incredible, there are studies to back this up, is that in spring, when we "lose" an hour of sleep, the next day after changing the clocks, heart attacks increase by about 24%.[0] Of course on the flip side, apparently there is a ~21% reduction in heart attacks when we set the clocks back in the fall, so maybe it's a wash.

Suicide rates also jump in spring on the day immediately after the clocks have been pushed forward.

[0] https://www.sciencealert.com/daylight-savings-time-change-ki...


I lived in China for several years, and I had to travel around the country for work. Having one big timezone with no DST makes everything easier on everyone all the time and the fact that the sun sets a bit earlier or later on the peripheries had no negative consequences at all - it's just the normal thing and everyone's used to it. Moving back to Canada and having to feel like a zombie for three weeks every spring is painful.

I'd also point out that, growing up slightly farther north, I grew up going to school in the dark for about four months of the year anyway, even with DST.


One big time zone sucks. Either one part of the country has a thrown off sleep pattern (because they're sleeping during daylight and coming home at night) or the timezone still exists but its just "unofficial" now because work starts at 5am rather than 8am and ends at 2pm instead of 5pm.


One big time zone sucks only if everyone incorrectly assumes everyone else in that zone has the same sleep/work schedule, rather than letting knowledge of the other person's location better inform that assumption. This tactic scales all the way up to the whole world just using UTC without clocks being set differently anywhere. Instead of a time zone meaning "a zone where clocks are offset by X amount" it's replaced by "a zone where the typical start of work is X o'clock." Of course, then we have to decide if "noon" and "midnight" need to be redefined not to mean precisely 12:00 and 0:00 respectively, but instead to be used as vague ideas the way we use the vague "midday" and so forth.

Edit: Or not vague per se, but calculated and looked up exactly how we do sunrise/sunset.


Having work start at 5 am doesn't make time unofficial, does it?

It would seem like it would make starting work at 8 am non-standard, but I don't see any logistical or biological reason that people have to go to work when a clock says "8:00". In fact breaking from the "8:00 means go to work" custom seems like less of a strain on transit systems (among other things).

Or are you saying that "start work at 8:00" is so ingrained that people create another unofficial time zone to deal with it?


This, a thousand times this.the current system where you assume the whole world starts at 9 am, but dont know what time it is anywhere is a work of mad genius psycho. We dont need to move time itself.


It really isn’t that simple though. Urumqi is heavily time distorted with store openings delayed two hours later than Beijing. Yes, the time is the same, but the schedules are different. What happens is that two times start floating around anyways (local time and Beijing time).


«the time is the same, but the schedules are different»

I fail to see how this would be worse than China having multiple timezones. A single timezone still makes many things much easier such as alleviating the mental load and software complexity in everything that revolves around cross-country logistics, meetings, travel, etc.

In my personal life, I lost count of the number of times a meeting was delayed or cancelled because of confusion around differing timezones.


Instead of setting your watch right (or having your phone automatically adjust), you instead have to just “remember” that all the standard store openings and work times are displaced by a couple of hours and continuously do the math in your head. How is that better? We’ve gone from one problem technology can fix to one that it definitely can’t.


> Instead of setting your watch right

What is right? What is your reference? Work start time? School start? Shop opening? Pub closing? Now try coordinating a conference with your supplier a few hundred km away based on their local supper time.

I don't know where you live, but if you go to say Spain, Holland, Italy and Czech republic, also comparing small towns / cities to large ones, the schedules will be quite different and I believe all of them are in the same time zone.


Urumqi is a small (by Chinese standards) city of 3 and a half million. There are a bunch of cities in northern xinjiang as well, it has a total population of 23.5 million (and is heavily urbanized in its north). Imagine if a province with more people than many European countries had a different schedule from the rest of the country. And it gets even worse in kashgar, but that’s a much smaller place than Urumqi (only 800k, might as well be a village).

Tibet has similar problems for sure, but there aren’t many people there and you are unlikely to experience it without a special travel permit.


It's not that it is incompatible, it's just different, mostly offset by an hour or two.

Somewhere people tend to start at 6,7,8,9 (say 20%, 30%, 40%, 10%), other place most people start at 9. Somewhere shops are open before 8, somewhere only after 10. In some shops close at about 18, in others most are open till 20 even 21-22. Some places have a siesta around noon.

Ok, maybe a bit much, but most things only affect you if you are there and you quickly find out, and others are just a 1-2h offset, so other companies may not be open during start or end of shifts. Not more of an inconvenience than standard flex time.


This kind of thing creates tension that leads to civil unrest. It is by far the biggest problems the Uighurs have with the central Chinese government, but the inability to have their own time be official (even though it exists and is widely used) definitely does the parties no favors.


In what surreal world do you live where all stores open at the same time? You need to either memorize or look up opening hours online anyway.


I was walking around in Urumqi one morning and just expected a department store to be open already...except it was 10 and it didn’t open until 11 on a Monday. It really isn’t a weird expectation in China for stores to have consistent hours.


Obligatory link: https://qntm.org/abolish


I’m tired of seeing this article on HN. Humans care where the sun is more than they care about what time it is. How am I supposed to know when someone in Europe is awake if it’s 10 PM for me in the US and the sun has already set? Timezones don’t just go away because you’ve switched to UTC everywhere. Sure, my meeting is at 14:00, but can my Brazilian, Russian, and Australian colleagues attend?


You have to check when they start work, but you dont have to deal with the fact that different countries switch clocks at a different date. And when you talk to them, it's clear to all what time 16:00 is


But instead you get a terrible confusion what day it is precisely because for somewhat more than half of the world the calendar date suddenly changes somewhere in the middle of the solar day instead of conveniently somewhere in the middle of the night when most people would be asleep (or at least not caring about the date) anyway.


This happens anyway even in the US. As an example many may have experienced, office hours are often a couple hours earlier on the east coast versus west coast in their local time zones. Consequently, scheduling meetings across time zones becomes more complicated because a 3-hour time zone difference can become closer to a 5-hour time zone when adjusted for local office hours.


Huh? Office hours are 9-5 in Seattle as they are in Miami. The only thing a bit different is the mall will open and close at 9:30 instead of 9.

I was always scheduled meetings from Beijing to Redmond or Beijing to Cambridge anyways, you could do either or, but there was little chance of a conference between both!


Office hours in places like Washington DC and NYC frequently start at 7am, some parts of the US are culturally early risers.

This works out brilliantly when I am in London, not so much when I am in Seattle.


> Having one big timezone with no DST makes everything easier on everyone all the time and the fact that the sun sets a bit earlier or later on the peripheries had no negative consequences at all

This is not true, at all. There was a good study recently [1] on how health is significantly impacted based on what side of a timezone you live on - I'd assume that the impact would be even more pronounced for one huge timezone.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/04/19/how-livin...


Isn’t the solution then to just keep the clocks moved back? There is no need to change them twice a year


No, because I like doing things outside in the summer after 6:30pm.


You don't like "doing things outside in the summer after 6:30pm".

You like doing things outside in the summer when the sun is at a certain point.

You can do that regardless of whether that point is called 5:30pm, 6:30pm, or 7:30pm....


the way we name the hours of the day is arbitrary, but the system serves to coordinate human activity. unless you do mostly asynchronous activities that don't involve coordinating with other people, you can't just decide when to start your day. there's not much point in opening your coffee shop after everyone is already at work.

when people talk about renumbering the hours of the day, they are really talking about recoordinating the hours that everyone else expects to interact with each other. changing the numbers themselves is just a hack to shift everyone's schedule at once. it's easier to shift 9am to 8am than it is to get every business to change their posted hours.


Perhaps he also has to work until 6pm and cannot choose to start one hour earlier. Perhaps he wants to do things outside just before going out for dinner; in some places restaurants do not open before 7:30pm. And so on.

Daylight savings time is only useful in a reduced range of latitudes, I grant that. But where it makes sense, it is way worth one hour of sleep once a year.


>Perhaps he also has to work until 6pm and cannot choose to start one hour earlier. Perhaps he wants to do things outside just before going out for dinner; in some places restaurants do not open before 7:30pm. And so on.

If enough people in a country want to do things "when the sun is at a certain point" and that point coincides with a working hour, they can move the 9-5 to 8-4 or whatever.

Coordination does not have to correspond to renaming the hours...


You can't just move the time at which society operates. The dependency chain of one thing needing to open with another and so on is too complex for a single entity to control.


That's exactly what you do by moving the time. He is suggesting we stop foing it the stupid way, and move the workhours themselves. The current system is like dragging the carpet to move a chair sitting on top. Leave the carpet alone and move the fucking chair directly.


Wouldn't that cause exactly the same disruption to sleep? If schools and everything else suddenly starts at 7 in March after having started at 8 for 5-6 months. And who would enforce it? What if schools move and working hours don't?

I'm starting to think that 30 minute off time zone offsets are the way to go.


The cost is more than one hour of sleep once a year; for many people it's up to three weeks of arriving drowsy and with a headache at work.


And the article goes into that:

> All the processes happening in our bodies are co-ordinated by our biological clocks, located in our brains and all other organs. The argument in favour of permanent DST is that there would be more light in the evening. While this is true, we can’t change the number of hours of light in the day. More evening light means less morning light. But importantly, it’s the light in the morning that is most important in resetting our biological clocks. [...] The problem is that we live in societies that force us to get up and go to work or school at times that we don’t get to choose.

> Chronobiologists, the name given to scientists who study biological timing, call this situation “social jet lag,” when the body clock doesn’t match the social clock.

The article is based on physiology and health effects.


Then just adjust the time you do it instead of forcing everybody to deal with DST.


A lot of people in places far enough away from the equator to have significant changes in sunlight hours want the increased daylight hours in summer to happen after work rather than before work, and/or do not want them to happen while they are still asleep or trying to sleep in the morning.

Yes, we could leave the clocks alone, and change the clock times at which we do things.

We could have businesses open at, say, 9 AM in the winter and 8 AM in the summer. We could have schools start an hour earlier in the summer.

People tend to want to arrange their sleep schedule so that they pretty much just prepare for work and/or school after waking and then leave, so that their non-work time is all after work. That way they get their non-work time in one block, instead of split into two smaller blocks with work in between.

That means we'd be changing our wake up times by an hour in the summer to accommodated business/school opening hours. (Which means those who rely on alarm clocks to wake on time would be changing their alarm time...so much for escaping fiddling with clocks!).

Much of what we do is tied to our sleep or work schedules, such as when we get hungry and when we need transit.

So...we end up with pretty much everything that operates on a regular schedule having a separate winter and summer schedule. Every place we print schedules has to have two schedules that get swapped between summer and winter. Every place that has an alarm or an alert tied to work or sleep needs to have alarm times swapped between summer and winter.

Dealing with all that will involve making more changes twice a year--some to things that can be a hassle to change like signage.

Or we can just change the clocks--which are designed to be easy to change, and nowadays most of them can even do it automatically.


I live in a country with DST, I currently have 3 devices in my house showing incorrect time. On my way to th city centre I came across 2 public clocks, one at a bus stop, one at a metro stop showing incorrect time. I walk into the KFC and time on the checkout counter is wrong.

Which part of this mess is "designed to be easy to change"??


Excellent reasons to have, every year,

1) two hours of time which use the same time notation (think about trains and flights arriving at those times), and

2) one hour which doesn't exist, leading to e.g. time interval between 1am and 3am being 1 hour.


You mean in the sunlight? Because...keeping the clocks moved means that extra hour of sunlight in the evening without blinding light at 4 AM.


It also means no light until 9am in the morning in places where the winter sun would rise at 8. That's depressing, thanks but no thanks. :-)


But you get that hour in the evening. In the morning you're home and then you go to work or at work (at least for most people), so you don't really even use that hour of sunlight. If you're at work like most people you might not even see it.

In the evening you can enjoy that hour and be less depressed.


No you don’t use that hour of sunlight. Some people like it.

Personally, my day is so much better when I wake up to the sun vs to cloud/fog/darkness. I just wake up happier, and I have no control over the sun.

So no I wouldn’t agree to trade my happiness throughout the day in exchange for eating dinner outside or whatever else people claim they need sunlight for at night.


No, I don't use that hour in the evening. I work 9-6 and cannot start working earlier because I have to take my son to school and come back home. Sometimes even 9-7 if I take a break to go running or whatever (which in the winter I must do when the sun is very high). That would be after the sun has set (5pm) even with year-round DST. Then I start cooking dinner.

In fact, working from home means that I do not go out at all after the sun has set.


I've lived in 2 different places in the world that did not do DST, and I have to respectfully disagree for many cases.

It's nice to hear from someone who's experienced both. These kinds of discussions are almost universally one-sided people moaning about Daylight Savings.

If we didn't have Daylight Savings, they'd moan about not having Daylight Savings, or the inconveniences caused by the shift in sunlight that you, someone who actually knows what he's talking about, detail.

Honestly, people just like to moan about things, and since the internet now makes it easier for small people to complain to large groups of people, it's all just imaginarily aggrieved people trying to make their voices heard above the rest of the rabble.

Complaining about Daylight Savings is like complaining about traffic, or daily weather — it's an easy target because it's abstract.


Indiana is a pretty good example.

They have a surprisingly lengthy DST history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Indiana



I disagree. DST would be better. I don’t recall “permanent DST” being tried in the US and a citation would have been nice. Regardless, for me the loss of daylight hours has always been difficult. Moving ~10 degrees closer to the equator has helped, but the general lack of any daylight in the evening is often still a problem.

Since, as the author notes, it’s the same amount of daylight, I’d rather see it in the evening because people have little control over when their day starts. A large number of us will be waking up in the dark anyway. Better that people get at least some daylight in the evening than none at all.


This might be common knowledge but I just recently realized that several states are already trying to move to daylight savings permanently.

From https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/10/28/20931998/d...

> Arkansas, too, passed a bill to make daylight saving time permanent, but it included the condition that the changes wouldn’t go into effect until its bordering states changed their clocks permanently too. Other states that have approved legislation to enact year-long daylight saving time include Washington, Tennessee, Oregon, Nevada, and Alabama. But none of the changes can go into effect without approval from the federal government.


To add to this, whether you like it or not, life has generally shifted towards the evening hours. In the morning people commute, and they get up so early that DST versus wintertime doesn't make a difference anyway- it's dark in the winter.

Personally, I get depressed for weeks every time we shift from DST to wintertime. I just can't stand the fact that after the shift the evenings are suddenly so dark. I'd appreciate DST the whole year round, too.


Another factor to consider that I don't see brought up much is having the sun in your eyes while driving. It seems to me that this is more hazardous in the mornings, when you're still trying to wake up and (possibly) dealing with fog/frost on your windshield as well.

Also, I have no issues with going to work when it's dark out, but going home after dark has a more forlorn feel to it. I think permanent DST - in many latitudes - would alleviate the worst effects for drivers.


It very much depends on where you live and personal lifestyle preferences. At my latitude current DST means in winter I wake up approx. around the sunrise, and while I get out of the apartment it's already full daylight. For me this is the most important thing. I'm not a morning type and I always hated to be forced to wake up in the morning while it's still pitch-black outside. It's already depressive enough that I have to go out of the warm bed to face a full day of work, but when you add a freezing cold night outside to the mix it makes me feel just miserable. And I don't care about the evenings that much. Different people, different tastes...


DST was year round in the US during WW2 and a short period after. They were referred to "War Time" and "Peace Time", respectively, at least according to the Olson timezone database.


> because people have little control over when their day starts.

This is actually one of the best arguments for standard time all year around!

If we force people to start the day at a specific time, we have the obligation, that for as many people possible, this time will be in sync with their circadian rhythm. And this can be guaranteed best with standard time.


> If we force people to start the day at a specific time, we have the obligation, that for as many people possible, this time will be in sync with their circadian rhythm. And this can be guaranteed best with standard time.

Neither Standard Time nor Daylight Savings Time align with our circadian rhythms, because our rhythms change in response to external stimuli like the sun. The rising and setting sun varies a lot and differently depending on your latitude.

As for the obligation you propose, let's say I work for CompanyCorp. And let's say they normalize on starting work at 8:00 am Standard Time. That means Larry who lives 5 miles from CompanyCorp wakes up at 7:30 am and makes it to work on time. I live 5 miles from CompanyCorp in the other direction and because of traffic I have to wake up at 6:30 am to make it on time. So does CompanyCorp have an obligation to Larry or to me? What about Greg, who is a headbanger, and has long, luxurious locks that necessity an extra 15 minutes getting ready?

Additionally, CoffeCo has to open up to provide service for all of the commuters who work at CompanyCorp, so they open at 6:00 am to be open in time for me to get coffee before work. And, of course, the schools have to be open so parents can see off their little ones before work.

I'm frankly not sure how you do this for "as many people as possible" without just moving the time forward an hour to help everyone who isn't currently best served be served a little better.


>one of the best arguments for standard time all year around! [...], this time will be in sync with their circadian rhythm. And this can be guaranteed best with standard time.

To clarify because of possible imprecision around the word "standard". I think what you're saying is that circadian regularity is best achieved with "unchanging" time instead of "standard" time.

There's Standard (capital 'S') time where the high point of the sun roughly at ~12pm. And then there's Daylight Saving time where the high sun is roughly at ~1pm. A circadian rhythm can be compatible with either of those systems if it's kept the same all year long.


Sorry for being imprecise, but I actually meant Standard Time (as in noon at about 12pm). Our circadian rhythms are not as flexible as many people think. There are many studies showing that people sleep less if the sun sets later, causing a net sleep loss with related health problems.


> if the sun sets later

The sun sets when it sets. We are choosing what clock label to put on that moment.

Getting up an hour earlier and thinking of the same clock position as "later in the day" is exactly the same as using DST— except clock noon and solar noon won't be permanently misaligned.


You know solar noon is not necessarily noon. Right? Pretty sure it changes throughout the year, too. If so, that seems more an argument for dst. I'll check in a bit. Someone may just know, though.


Solar noon changes a bit through the year, but the range is just half an hour: https://www.sundials.co.uk/eot


Odd, this would seem to be a data point for DST being just half an hour.

That said, that chart is suspicious for not having jumps for DST. How does that work?


DST doesn’t have anything to do with the oscillation of the true noon at any location by +/-15 minutes around the year (that cycle is not even summer/winter).


How? Noon literally shifted by an hour per last night. So there should be a jump in the chart. Not a smooth line. A jump.


The chart shows at what time noon happens when you have a 24-hour clock calibrated to get it right on average. For example, a clock showing GMT assuming you’re in Greenwich.

If you add or subtract hours to your clock instead of keeping a 24 hours day length then yes, you will have jumps. But those jumps are caused by you playing with the clock, they are not real.

The fact that Daylight Savings Time exists doesn’t have anything to do that the duration of the day is sometimes a few seconds longer and sometimes a few seconds shorter than 24 hours.

If noon was always 24 hours after the previous one the line in that chart would be flat. With discontinuities if you want to include DST shifts in the chart, but I really don’t see the interest in doing so.

The rationale for applying DST has nothing to do with that variation, it would be just the same if the time from noon to noon was always 24 hours.


This feels like a classic case of talking past each other.

First, I will acknowledge you answered precisely what I asked. Thank you.

I would like to get DST back in context, since it is in that context that I asked. The assertion seemed to be that solar noon being at local noon had some advantages. I agree that is begging the question to assume it, but I am just exploring the consequences.

So, assuming I was asking for drift of solar noon to local noon, we have to account for our messing with the clock. Because we do and did. Would there be advantage to us having a mechanism that more closely aligned them? More, what would that mechanism look like? I was guessing that it would look similar to DST, just with 30 minute swings, not 60.


Let’s assume you’re at longitude 0 and noon happens for you at 12:00 (on average). If there were 24 timezones of exactly 15 degrees of longitude each there will be places at longitude +/- 7.4999 which are in your time zone where noon happens at 11:30 or 12:30 (on average) and never at 12:00. If you want to “fix” this problem you need to add timezones, not to mess wit the clock.

If you only care about your (latitude 0) time of noon which is given by that chart and you want to make it closer to 12:00 by splitting the year in “winter” and “summer” time (with only two changes in the year) you would have winter time from late-december to mid-june and summer time from mid-june to late-december and apply a time shift of about 10 or 15 minutes. This is just a guess, you may take that curve and optimize the timing and magnitude of the shift to approximate the curve with two constante segments. Or more that two, if you want.


When I moved to Arizona I thought it would be great. I actually hate it because I tend to wake with the light and in the summer I feel more tired because it's hard not to wake up so early. And then in the winter I have to set an alarm to get to work on time. While not a complete solution, this problem is mitigated by adjusting the twice a year.


> I don’t recall “permanent DST” being tried in the US and a citation would have been nice.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time_in_the_Un...


Arizona is is MST all year, which is the same as PDT, so you could argue it's always in daylight time.


Using permanent DST instead of ST means:

- Clock noon and solar noon are one hour apart, forever

- It's the same thing as rotating the clock labels for all the time zones by one step, all around the Earth

We are choosing what label to put on what time of day. If the labels are fixed throughout the year, both choices are exactly equivalent, after everyone decides whether to get up an hour earlier or an hour later. But one of them separates the time from the fundamental astronomical cycle from which it is derived.


Solar noon isn't really relevant to anything and it's rarely perfectly accurate anyway. Businesses etc. are never all going to agree to stop working on the time schedules they're used to. So, the most pragmatic option seems to be just "tricking" them and moving the clock so that we get more daylight time in the afternoon.


So we can change the fundamental time system, but a business changing its hours from 9am to 8am is impossible?


There isn't anything fundamental about the time system. Timezones are already an abstraction that separates clock noon and solar noon. In places, clock noon and solar noon are already forever an hour or more apart even during standard time. Sometimes even places with the same longitude are an hour or more apart. Clock noon and solar noon are only in sync at one longitude per time zone in the first place. We have already managed to survive with the delta between them jumping by an hour two times a year for decades. Given all that I'm not sure how normalizing on a larger delta would be at all impactful. For people who need solar noon, sundials and almanacs are already available and needed.


> Timezones are already an abstraction that separates clock noon and solar noon. In places, clock noon and solar noon are already forever an hour or more apart even during standard time. Sometimes even places with the same longitude are an hour or more apart.

That's a fair argument.


This is an interesting map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_European_Time#/media/F...

Eastern Poland has two hours of difference with neighbouring Belarus, however it has the same time as Western Spain which is in reality over two hours apart.


Time system is pretty fundamental, in the same way a kilogram is. We don't reduce volume of a gallon to cope with an oil crisis.

A flight lasts 4 hours, concrete takes a day to set , etc, etc. When a physical processes straddles timezones, it's a complete mess.


None of those things are strictly fundamental. We can do physics with entirely different units with no changes to our formulas as long as we keep the units consistent. Those relationships are fundamental. The units are not.

But we aren't talking about changing the hour. We are talking about changing the label we attach to a given hour. A better analogy would be changing the word kilogram to something else if we found doing so useful. And, in fact, we do that all the time whenever we are talking in another language.


That's the gist of it I think.


I enjoy reading about perspectives on DST, this one included, but I'm not a big fan of the fearmongering.

The article makes DST changes seem quite frightening by stating:

> After time switches, particularly the “spring forward,” there are increased rates of car accidents, heart attacks, strokes and workplace injuries.

This links to an article titled “Daylight-saving time is literally killing us”, which then links to the paper in question.

The paper, however, makes a much milder statement:

> Prior research has shown a transient increase in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) after daylight savings time (DST) in the spring as well as a decrease in AMI after returning to standard time in the fall.

> These findings have not been verified in a broader population

And most importantly:

> In the week following the seasonal time change, DST impacts the timing of presentations for AMI but does not influence the overall incidence of this disease.

It seems like the results get more dramatised with every publication in the chain. Do we have to exaggerate studies to the point of fearmongering just to support our points?


> Do we have to exaggerate studies to the point of fearmongering just to support our points?

They're not fear-mongering, they're citing peer-reviewed research:

* https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.0094...

All three co-authors are experts in their fields:

> They are writing on behalf of the Canadian Society for Chronobiology.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronobiology


No, they are fearmongering. Yes, the rate of heart attacks rises for a few days after the change ... but the overall rate if you look at a week or two is no different. That is, the change might stress people into death who would have otherwise died a few days later anyway.

Reporting that it leads to an increased death count is simply false: it is a small rise followed by an equal volume small dip, with no net difference if you look at a larger window.


> the overall rate if you look at a week or two [later] is no different

I don't see any statement to that effect in the linked paper. Quite the contrary: they interpret the evidence as suggesting that the increase in "social jet lag" has deleterious effects during the entire duration of DST. Can you produce a quotation supporting your interpretation?


> Reporting that it leads to an increased death count is simply false: it is a small rise followed ...

Which is exactly what the authors of the article said. As quoted by the original commenter:

> Prior research has shown a transient increase ...


The problem with both standard time and DST is that instead of having our tools work for us and simplify our lives, we are working for our tools to simplify their implementation.

Isn't that backwards?

We used to wake up at sunrise and schedule our day relative to that. For me at least it would be simpler if sunrise was fixed all life long to 7:00 am, so that I can have a single schedule my whole life (e.g. wake up with the sunrise every day).

Instead of over-correcting with a huge fix once per year with DST, or not correcting anything at all and messing my sleeping patterns with standard time, we could just correct time a little bit every day so that we can all wake up with the sunrise if we wanted.

Why? Because I at least feel I've slept a million times better if I wake up with real natural light, and that would be a huge quality of life improvement for me.

Sure, time and dates are already complicated, and such a system might make our tools more complicated, but we have solved worse problems. My phone could just shift my "time" at midnight every night so that the sunrise the next day is again, at 7:00 am, like every other day.


It would never work. In northern latitudes you’ll have your 7am shifted at 11am with the sunset 2 hours later. In the summer you’ll sunrise would be at 1am with the sunset at 11. Imagine what happens to your schedule with a fixed 7 am time.


Bonus insight: there doesn't have to be a "fixed 7am time".

Countries have widely varying opening/closing business hours...


With Sidereal Time[1], local noon is measured by the sun’s relative angle to the observer’s location. So ‘noon’ is basically at the same time, and the days’ ends push and pull as the earth orbits.

If we didn’t have to coordinate time, this seems like it’d be a pleasurable timescale to keep. Since we do have to coordinate time, we’d then have to keep a separate timescale alongside our local time. I guess this isn’t too far from our current timezone+utc/gps system?

[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time)


Sidereal time is only like 4 minutes or so off standard, iirc.


Seems like sidereal and solar time are 4 minutes off per ‘day’. They are more similar to each other than standard time, I think. But I was referring to their day reference starting at ‘high noon’.

It’s unlikely your version of standard time has noon at the sun’s peak. My solar noon is at around 11:30, and will be at 12:30 after the time change. Honestly not that different I suppose, but it

You can check yours here: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/solcalc/


>The problem with both standard time and DST is that instead of having our tools work for us and simplify our lives, we are working for our tools to simplify their implementation.

Well, it's also us who have to do the implementation, and suffer its issues (and its bugs) so it makes sense.

>Instead of over-correcting with a huge fix once per year with DST, or not correcting anything at all and messing my sleeping patterns with standard time, we could just correct time a little bit every day so that we can all wake up with the sunrise if we wanted.

How about we have a standard time all around the globe (like UTC or "Swatch Beats")?

For coordination/syncing it's perfect (you say, "at 22:00" and everybody knows when that is for its the same all around the world).

For not bothering people at the wrong time, it's the same as today (i.e. you still need to know one offset, e.g. that Japan is 3 hours ahead of your country -- only now this would just serve to mentally add to your time to know if it's a good time or not, as the clock time would be the same as in your place).

And of course anything computer related is either hugely simplified (e.g. comparing data from servers at the same time), or as complex as today (still needs an offset, e.g. to send the same thing at the start of working day).

As for schools, businesses, they would keep the same daylight-related hours as now, just shifted by the countries UTC offset. E.g. the "9 to 5" work schedule in NYC would be 5am to 1pm in the global time.


Using UTC everywhere, what times would you expect a business to be open today in Hawaii? What kind of sign might they use to signify their business hours for each day of the week?


As the OP has said, you still have to know the offset, except now when you write an email " I will call at 11" they know what your are talking about immediately.

As for the sign, what are you even asking?


What if you say "I will call sometime tomorrow". What does that mean if you're telling that to someone in Hawaii?

A business has hours of operations. In Hawaii, those hours of operations will span multiple days on the UTC clock. What does "today" mean in UTC everywhere? What about "tomorrow"? What does "Sunday" mean? Does every place experience "Sunday" at the same time?

Let's say "Sunday" is the same datetime everywhere - e.g. on 2019-11-03 it starts at 00:00 UTC and ends at 23:59 UTC. Currently, every business I go to has something like this:

Mon-Thurs: 8am-8pm Fri-Sat: 8am-9pm Sun: 8am-7pm

This no longer makes sense. You now have to talk about business hours for Saturday/Sunday, Sunday/Monday, etc. Saying you will meet up "Saturday" doesn't make sense. When you tell your friend you're free "Sunday the 3rd" it could mean you're free 2 different solar days.

There is no useful sense of "today", "tomorrow", or even "monday" anymore. And as you stated, you still need to know offsets. Offsets that we will call what... timezones? What exactly are we getting with UTC everywhere?


>Let's say "Sunday" is the same datetime everywhere - e.g. on 2019-11-03 it starts at 00:00 UTC and ends at 23:59 UTC. Currently, every business I go to has something like this: Mon-Thurs: 8am-8pm Fri-Sat: 8am-9pm Sun: 8am-7pm This no longer makes sense.

Yes, and that's already covered, and it's the same situation as now, when you say "I'll call you at 11" and it's not clear if it means your time or their time, and to know when 11 there you need to check an offset (timezone) list.

Under the proposed scheme, you reverse the problem. "11:00" is the same everywhere, and to know the time businesses open you need to consult an offset list.

It will tell you e.g. Hawaii, start of business: 14:00 (or whatever it is in UTC).

As simple as that. And when you say "I'll call you tomorrow" you don't have to be vague anymore, you can use UTC as reference for today and tomorrow, so you can say "I'll call you at 18:00 (shared time)" and even if neither of you knows the other's offset they can immediately tell you if that would be a good hour or not (because of course the other side will know what 18:00 is to them).

>There is no useful sense of "today", "tomorrow", or even "monday" anymore.

Internationally there isn't one either. With a max +-12 hours offset, if you say "I'll you call you today" to someone, you can easily call them when the day has changed in their country but is still "today" in theirs.

Monday in your country might start 12 hours ahead of Monday in theirs.

If anything, a UTC-based Monday will be the same absolutely time period everywhere. It would be the same as today in England and the same as 01:00 - 01:00 in France, so the same time span for everybody.

>And as you stated, you still need to know offsets

As you do now if you're to make any international collaboration.

>What exactly are we getting with UTC everywhere?

We already spelt it out quite clearly. A central absolute time reference used everywhere.


Using timezones doesn't tell you that either, at best it gives you an approximation but different businesses in the same timezone can have very different business hours.


That does not work particularly well at northern latitudes where sun goes below the horizon for couple of hours in the summer, if that. And it would create time zones between latitudes even within the same country where the difference changes from day to day.


Our time-zone system is already flexible enough for regions for which this is a problem to pick up something else that works for them (we already have regions that use DST and regions that do not).

I live in Austria and it makes absolutely no sense for me to use the exact same system as somebody in the north pole, or for me and those in the north pole to "compromise" on a system that's bad for both of us.


>>> For me at least it would be simpler if sunrise was fixed all life long to 7:00 am....

You should consider moving to Hawaii or somewhere else closer to the equator.


I think this idea is worth due consideration - I have suggested a version of it before ~~ http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25/10#subj1.1 ~~ http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/25/50#subj1.1


You can't fix the problem you're describing by fiddling with time standards. Even before timezones became a thing, people started waking up to get to work at a fixed time of day.

What changed things was the need for everyone to be at a workplace at the same time to be productive (factories mostly).


Biologically, relatively correct. For the certain latitudes.

Technologically, time zones were first invented in 19th century for real problem of every town having its own 12 o clock (for different longitudes).

The DST was indeed the improvement of the simple time zones first "solution" which better suited the latitudes of those who started using DST. And now trying to revert to the previous unimproved solution is in enough latitudes still worse.

But now it's time where the bad ideas spread better because they fit the newly common attention span of many, including the European politicians who decided to abolish the DST based on the results of the "votes from the internet"(!) In reality, the studies showing "no advantage" of DST didn't even prove that, but... attention span:

e.g the report cited as the "argument against" from 2008, now (unsurprisingly, sadly) disappearing from the internet:

https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/pdfs/epact_sec_110_edst_...

didn't prove that DST was wrong or that it produced no savings but instead that "changing its start date from the first Sunday in April to the second Sunday in March, and in the fall by changing its end date from the last Sunday in October to the first Sunday in November" still gave "the total electricity savings of (such) Extended Daylight Saving Time" of "about 1.3 Tera Watt-hour (TWh)" at the place where the study was done. How it was "translated" for the internet attention span by anti-DST people? As "even government studies showed no energy or fuel savings" and even those that should know better swallowed it. What's known is that people have problem with the abrupt 1 hour change. But that could maybe today be solved with a few smaller step adjustments, twice half an hour maybe, or three times 20 minutes? Sounds complicated? It's less than before because now at least everything's connected, and we have faster computers. Also see:

Figure 1: Sunrise and sunset times with daylight saving time and 2007 extensions in southern Indiana:

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14429.pdf

for the accurate visual representation of how the "extensions" look like on the year chart, and how the DST works: white areas is where's the light in a day. Such charts show the "why" of the DST and are latitude dependent but nobody uses them in the present "discussions." I posit that anybody who doesn't understand the latitude dependency of such charts and what the charts actually show and can't discuss on that level is effectively unqualified to contribute to the topic.

Most latitudes where DST had really no benefit simply didn't use it even up to now. Some (close enough to the equator or close enough to the poles) should indeed not use it. But it was earlier technically simpler for big areas to have the same rules.


When you work for an international organization DST is doubly annoying.

Four times a year we have 1/4th of our team missing half the meetings:

- When Europe goes to DST, half the Americans don't show up to meetings on European time

- same for when the US goes to DST

- same twice again for the other shift 6 months later

This is to say nothing of every other country's DST shift: we're dominated by US and Europe so everyone else is neglected even worse.

We're not air traffic controllers so it could be worse, but it's enough for me to understand why aviation and most servers go to UTC and stay there.


And as more and more organizations and social circles become global, I think the only stable end state is the whole world using UTC.


Arguing about DST vs standard time seems ridiculous to me because your longitude relative to the edge of the timezone can add/subtract an hour either way. All these subjective opinion posts about the sun being up or down in the morning/evening depend entirely on where in your timezone you live.

This map summarizes the situation: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--pY-JErG4...

Ironically, even though Canada invented time zones, almost the entire country is in the wrong timezone save for Montreal/Ottawa.

Only people living in the white sections are actually in the middle of their timezone where standard time would be accurate.

And if you don't like the sun setting early, you could even move to one of the red sections or vice versa.


Here is a similar with NZ and friends so we can all focus on what the comment is saying instead repeating how 0.1% of the world's population isn't in the image: http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTimeV...

I agree that we've let "what time is it" get conflated with too many other things - I'm not even sure time zones are the best answer for what people are actually looking for. Having the same time to reference across a region is best handled by UTC, it's the same everywhere. When do people in a region want to wake up and start work or how long do they want light in the afternoon? Depends how long people in that region work, how far off the equator they are & what time of year it is, and what their personal preference is. Trying to solve all of these things with zones drawn and changed in a chaotic fashion (not always in the same 1 hour increment either) overlaid with offsets of that time drawn and changed in an equally chaotic fashion seems like the worst of all options.

None of these things have anything to do with what the referenced number on the clock is, we've only created more problems by trying to solve it by changing the number on the clock and it hasn't made anyone agree anymore than they did before.


Indeed, the proper solution is to work with business hours, which you can vary city by city of you so please.


Unfortunately your map has cropped out several countries, included where I live. Do you have a copy that has Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, New Zealand, New Caledonia, etc?



CA confirmed the best


As someone who naturally wakes up at the same (relative) time regardless, DST/ST shifts are a major pain for me, and creates a whole month of totally unnecessary stress and readjustment (it's actually a bit worse than transatlantic trips for me, since the eight-hour shift I usually undergo in those is something I'm more aware of is somehow easier to deal with).

(edit: grammar - see? we just shifted clocks and my brain still hasn't caught up)


It seems odd to me that instead of changing business and school hours appropriately, we shift our whole concept of time. An hour disappears from one place and appears somewhere else.

I understand the arguments for DST, but it seems like this extremist thing when simpler options exist.


This argument is weaker than you think. You are asking every business to coordinate when they shift their working hours. Across industries, even.

That is exactly what we have right now. With almost certainly less legal writing to coordinate. Definitely let for people to remember. "Is this the week that stores open later? All stores?"


Where I live we have DST and stores change their hours during winter, the worst of both worlds!

And yes, it would effectively be exactly what we have right now, though I'm not sure that weakens my argument. I just think it's goofy to move an hour around every year. Everybody's clocks change so business don't have to change their hours? Certainly shows where the power lies in our society...


That does sound silly. Why do they change hours? Does it happen at the same time as the clock change?

Honestly, we never even know about leap seconds. And we add a full day every four years. Both are arguably similar. If is was just more frequent smaller changes, I'd wager we wouldn't care.


Everything slows down here during winter and many business have reduced hours. They switch hours at different times, I assume they choose the dates because of the snow.

And our measurements of time are already imprecise, no need to make it even more complicated by adding DST.


On the contrary, I believe coordinating country wide shift in business hours Is far easier than a clock shift.

I live in czech republic, and today i have come across 7 (!) clocks showing incorrect time. By the time they are corrected, it will be time to switch again.


Compare those claimed health negatives against the positives of DST: having more time outdoors in the evenings for exercise and sunlight exposure to combat SAD. Plus more time to be out and social. All positives.

With extra sunlight in the morning, most people wouldn’t use it to be outdoors.


Agreed! I'm on an eastern edge of a timezone and DST ending moves sunset forward from 6PM to 5PM (and up to around 4:20PM during winter solstice). This feels like doubling down on how much winter sucks: not only is it cold, but it's now not possible for me to exercise outside in daylight after work


You do realize that DST doesn't change the rotation of the Earth nor does it create or destroy sunlight, right?


DST changes the relationship between the sun and business opening/closing hours. It's all good to tell someone to get up earlier or later, but if their job/whatever is fixed to a certain time then that isn't a choice.


I don't understand why it is easier for a country to move time by decree than to arrange for different working hours.


Time is set by decree, while in principle every company is free to set its own working hours, making it harder for everyone to agree.


You do realize that people/jobs/schools don't have open schedules, but are forced to work specific opening and closing hours right?

Because it sounds like this is news to you...


I'm not cool with the idea of 7:30 PM sunsets in summer, thank you very much. The 4:30 winter sunsets are bad enough. Let's make it all-year DST, or, for those of us in Chicago, move Eastern Time westward a bit.


10 am sunrises are spectacular and you are actually awake to stop and witness them. I really miss them in Saskatchewan.


There have been semi-serious arguments for combining eastern and central. And mountain and pacific. A lot of people in New England would like to shift to Atlantic time but I can’t realistically see moving to a different time zone than NYC.


You can pretend it's 8:30pm.


Not if you get out of work and your kids get out of school at a specific time.


I think the UK is leaning towards summer time all year. People seem to greatly prefer going home in the light than waking up in it. [Plus it'll keep us more in sync with Europe, assuming they stick on standard time]


The EU will shift to DST in springtime 2021. Then in the autumn of 2021, each individual country in the EU will decide whether or not to switch back to standard time, thus ending permanently on ST or DST.

Switching to and from DST has been a PITA for me, so I look forward to 2021. And personally I'm in favour of permanent standard time. I do like the wonderfully long evenings in summer here in Denmark, but I dread the dark mornings in winter. So standard time for me, please.


Last I heard, this has stalled in the EU parliament. :(

Some of the big countries have shifted their position from "cool, lets do this" to "meh, why bother".

I'd also prefer permanent standard time, FWIW.


Perhaps you are right (although I hope you aren't). I was reading https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190321IP... the other day, and I sensed some light at the end of the tunnel.

I guess we'll see…


I think it is more important to keep the common time zone we currently have in the middle of the EU than where exactly it is. So it makes sense to delay a decision, until an agreement across the member states of that time zone can be reached. And as most of the time zone already is in the "plus" vs. the astronomical time, standard time would be the very obvious choice.


I hate waking up in the dark, it makes me feel awful as if I’ve had to wake up in the middle of the night. Coming back home in the dark can be quite nice, on the other hand. Feels very autumnal and cosy. If we stop changing the clocks I’ll definitely have to buy one of those light alarm clocks.


> Plus it'll keep us more in sync with Europe, assuming they stick on standard time

IIRC the poll in Germany at least greatly favored permanent CEST as well.


The "poll" hat about 4% participation and the language of the choices has been controversial. So one should not take it as a strict mandate.

This is also one of the topics, where large parts of the population demonstratably don't understand the question, so should be left to the parliaments. Especially as technical questions of maintaining a central time zone are more important than where the timezone lands.


The poll in Spain also had a huge majority for permanent DST, but the government says they lean towards standard time anyway, because "experts".


Spain keeping permanent DST would be quite peculiar. Their standard time already is 2 hours aheard of the sun, so I wouldn't understand why they wanted to be permanentely 3 hours ahead of the sun.


I hope Germans also reconsider and start listening to the scientists!

This is again one of those issues where people voted against their own interests, because they associate summer with warmth + light and winter with cold + darkness.


Yeah, coming home in the dark sucks when you have kids.


I absolutely prefer DST or summer time over standard, it just makes so much more sense. With standard time sun goes down at 5pm here so the only time there's any sunlight is while im the office working. Standard time sucks for our modern lifestyle.


No, it does not make any sense!

It forces the majority of the population to live with a constant mini jet-lag. It causes productivity loss and many health issues.

There are no chrono-biologists advocating DST (or constant summer time) over standard!


Part of my understanding for thr time change was for safety for children going to school. In the winter it’s still quite dark where I live until at least 7:45. This means you have children standing close to the road in darkness waiting for the bus. Especially in rural ares where the trip can be an hour or more for school. This would be true for thr latitudes of at least Philadelphia in the USA and north. This would cover most of nothern Italy and Europe as well.

If we didn’t roll back we’d be extending the darkness even more in the winter. Sure we could change hours of operation for schools, government, business, stock markets etc but is that feasible ?


Year-round daylight time will cause 'permanent jet lag,' sleep experts warn in letter to government

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/daylight-tim...


LOL, I grew up in Saskatchewan that never had a time change and no jetlag either. We had to wake up in the dark, just like every other province in the winter. Glad to see the time change going away, people need to pick a timezone and stick with it.


> After time switches, particularly the “spring forward,” there are increased rates of car accidents, heart attacks, strokes and workplace injuries.

I hate when credible scientists dangle correlations in front of lay audiences without a caveat emptor or further evidence of causation.

These folks seem to be doing real science, but this article reads like a lot of the questionable woo stuff out there.


Brazil has adopted Standard Time all year, and it's been so good!


Maybe because its latitude is within the ±30° range from the Equator, hence the no need for DST ?!

Please, Standard Time is preferred globally, but don't confuse the topics.


When daylight savings time was first introduced in Brazil, it was for the whole country.

Then a couple of years ago the north and northeastern parts of the country, which are closer to the equator, stopped observing daylight savings time.

Finally, this year the president passed an executive order that abolished daylight savings time for the whole country. If it had not been canceled, this year's daylight savings time would have started two weeks ago. There was a brief confusion because some people's cellphones didn't update the time zone database correctly and switched to daylight savings time even though they should not anymore.


As an Icelander living with all-day brightness or darkness all the time (depending on the time of year) I think this might potentially be bullshit.


Ha. Indeed. I'm just below the Arctic Circle, ~3 hour days in winter.

DST? Nah, think more like 'take a long lunch break to check out the sun'. :D


If we were to eliminate the biannual clock changes, why would it matter which time base we switch to? Organizations would surely set their business hours appropriately for either choice. Does it matter what the number on the clock is during sunset? If you prefer permanent DST, why not just wake up an hour earlier (obligations permitting)?

Me, if we were to eliminate the clock changes, I'd pick permanent standard time, because it more closely matches astronomical time.

The question of whether to retain the biannual clock changes is another issue. (I'm for the switches, because it's the least painful way to coordinate everyone getting up earlier in the summer.)


> If you prefer permanent DST, why not just wake up an hour earlier (obligations permitting)?

"Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"

Me and the other peasants would eat cake if we had some.

Only the fortunate few get to set their hours.


But society sets the hours based on the majority of the population. Permanent DST would trigger a time shift so that the effects are compensated.


Depends on the time zone. For some countries in the CET, the summer time actually is closer to the real local time than the standard time. In a year or two the EU countries will have to choose whether to stay on standard or DST. But the net result is just chopping up CET into distinct time zones. Slovenia seems to be in favor of standard time, Croatia prefers DST because more profit in tourism. You can drive through one country in an hour or two, and the other in another few hours, yet they will be 1 hour apart in time. Bonkers if you ask me.


No, you got it wrong. The meridian of the CET is at the east German border. Only places east of it are in the "negative" time zone, less than one hour in difference. To the west, we have France already at +1, and Spain even at +2.

Permanent DST would put Poland at 0 to +1, Germany at +1 to +2, France at +2..+3.


I find DST to be a major annoyance with no real benefit. The "spring forward" phase is the more difficult adjustment for me.


This is only "opinion" in the sense that it is an opinion article.

The links to the scientific consensus that I've posted in the other HN thread on the topic:

> In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently. The latter would exaggerate all the effects described above beyond the simple extension of DST from approximately 8 months/year to 12 months/year (depending on country) since body clocks are generally even later during winter than during the long photoperiods of summer (with DST) (Kantermann et al., 2007; Hadlow et al., 2014, 2018; Hashizaki et al., 2018). Perennial DST increases SJL prevalence even more, as described above.

> A solution to the problem is shown in Figure 2C, which contains a combination of obliterating DST (in favor of permanent Standard Time) and reassigning countries and regions to their actual sun-clock based time zones.

* https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.0094...

> As an international organization of scientists dedicated to studying circadian and other biological rhythms, the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) engaged experts in the field to write a Position Paper on the consequences of choosing to live on DST or Standard Time (ST). The authors take the position that, based on comparisons of large populations living in DST or ST or on western versus eastern edges of time zones, the advantages of permanent ST outweigh switching to DST annually or permanently.

* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07487304198541...

If you don't want Standard Time for personal reasons, that's fine. But it's like when health experts say that people should exercise (say) 150 minutes per week, and the reply is "well I don't have time for that". You have the right to not follow the advice, but it does not negate what the advice is best.


can we not just schedule a one time 30 minute adjustment between the two to split the difference, then never deal with this again?


I agree, that seems the best to me. Make Central Europe Time UTC+1:30 and call it a day.


A compromise that satisfies no one is worse than choosing arbitrarily.


There’s a hierarchy of problems: the worst thing is harshly disrupting everyone’s schedule — all three choices are better than the status quo.

I’d prefer the remaining energy go toward encouraging employers to offer more flexibility in schedules: time zones cover enough territory that every choice is going to inconvenience millions of people around the edges, and allowing more spread would also be a great way to make rush hour less pronounced.


Funnily enough, I've once heard the quote: "A good compromise is one that leaves everyone unhappy"


why? it'll be closer to each camp's arguments for their position 6 months out of the year. so 6 months out of the year each "side" will be miffed, but... they're that way anyway, and we all will save collectively huge amounts of time not bothering to change clocks/schedules/etc. twice a year.


As someone who has had to build systems that account for the transient geopolitical complexities of time zones, it is pretty obvious we should all be on UTC.


For the readers, I'll add a gently remainder that this is about Canada whose southern border is located at about 50°N. That means that the shift in daylight that they experience during the year is quite amplified.

Beside that, the article is quite poorly written and misleading! Do not assume that everything said apply for the rest of the world.

> Changing our clocks twice a year has little benefit, economic or otherwise, so isn’t it time to stop this antiquated practice?

Yeah, thanks for such a scientific sentence with no explanations, no data, not even an introduction to the topic. Next time maybe also ask some astronomers…

> As experts on biological rhythms, we support the switch to a permanent time.

That's perfectly fine, but at least explain why… and provide advice for the current practice (e.g. for the Spring change, move up your daily routine/schedule by 3 minutes every day for the 20 days before the change, so it will occur smoothly).

> People on the western edge are forced to get up an hour earlier than people on the east, according to sun time.

What ?! Not in standard time-zones. That can happen only in countries which span across different time zones and decides to keep a single "official" time.

> Analysis of health data from millions of people shows that […]

No source at all; that seems more a supposition from a USA article. They see sunrise/sunset 19 minutes early (depends on the latitude), but that doesn't mean that they sleep less. All the rest is just bullshit.

> Permanent DST would make sunrise even later for everyone, while permanent ST would make sunrise closer to body time.

In the northern emisphere permanent DST would make sunrise later in the Winter; permanent ST would keep the sunrise to the current optimum (for the Winter; during the Summer we already wake up with the Sun).


Bad statistics again.

See Matt Parker's book "humble pi" for a discussion on this.

But basically in the week following a clock change, there is no statistical variation in heart attacks or strokes. On the Monday, there's a slightly higher rate when we short an hour. On the tuesday there's a lower one to compensate.

Looks like people having a heart attack that week might have it a day early.

It's as valid to argue that with the drop on a Tue, lives are saved by doing this. Or the fact that the other change with an extra hour in bed has a temporary beneficial effect in the opposite direction, so over the year any such effects cancel out. Adding an hour to the night saves lives too.

My personal view is we should be on summer time all the time for later evening light and deal with dark mornings. Frankly, schools shouldn't be starting that early anyway; but that's a different argument altogether.


> Analysis of health data from millions of people shows that people on the western edges of time zones get about 19 minutes less sleep every night than people on the east, and also have significantly higher rates of obesity, diabetes and heart attacks than people on the eastern edges.

I would love to see this data. If it is really true that people farther west in a time zone have worse health outcomes, and this effect is seen across wide swaths of the world, that is pretty compelling evidence. And I say this as someone who personally would much rather keep DST all year long.

It seems like a pattern that would be hard to fake, since it would imply that there is a marked step in health outcomes at every single time zone border. If this pattern really exists in the data, that is really saying something.


Personally, I am for DST only. As a night owl seeing dawn at 3am during summer sounds horrible to me.


As a night owl (wich most people actually are), Standard Time all year around would be best for you, from a biological stand point at least.


re: Year round DST in the US

From the article:

>Permanent DST was tried in the United States in the past century but was quickly repealed when the public found that waking up in the dark is hard, and energy savings were negligible.

From Wikipdedia:

>President Franklin Roosevelt instituted year-round DST, called "War Time", on February 9, 1942. It lasted until the last Sunday in September 1945. After 1945 many states and cities east of the Mississippi River adopted summer DST.

It sounds like year-round DST sunsetted with the end of the war & not because the public overly cared about energy costs or were struggling to wake up in the dark.

In fact, several states missed Daylight Savings Time so much, that they quickly restored it for at least ½ the year.


They’re probably referring to the permanent DST during the 70s oil crisis. As I recall it wasn’t repealed but it was for a limited period and Congress didn’t renew.


The biggest thing I’ve learned from this thread and a hundred discussions like it is that no matter how we choose to set our clocks, a lot of people are going to be unhappy.

You could have a majoritarian rule on the issue, but it seems like it would just be better all around for schools, parks, businesses and markets to adjust their opening hours based on their own location, the season, and damn the time zone.


I’d love it if we could just have more gradual transitions throughout the year—maybe clocks could shift every day so that sunrise was always at 6 am. We woke up this morning and didn’t even realize we’d left DST until we saw an old oven clock that didn’t update itself; perhaps technology can offer us a better alternative than what has historically been possible?


The human and animals, when in nature, follow the night/day cycles, not an artificial clock time meant to synchronize an industrial society. IMO it's fine, and even natural, to have different time on winter and summer, but why does the change be one hour on every country and why changed all at once?

If health is the goal, e.g. a 20 minutes change each two months seems much easier to adapt to.


As a bike commuter in Portland, OR, year round DST will probably discourage me in the winter. Of course, winter already does a good job of that!


Shifting the time scale so the sun would rise later and set later in summer seems a good thing - I certainly don't need sunlight until 8am so I have to cover my windows with tinfoil, and I'd love the sunset to be even later, at midnight ideally.

But as for winter - why do we move the time scale back so it gets dark even earlier?


I'm the opposite: I would love to have sunrise at 8 AM daily so I am better able to get out of bed.

Especially during winter.

Also, we don't move the time scale back: it returns to its natural state. It is moved forward during summer.


Clock time is just a semantic construct. You can call it 3pm DST or 4pm EST, but it's still the same damn time. The real, simple answer IMO, is for people to wake up earlier, go to work/school earlier, and go to bed earlier. Adjust our lives and work hours, don't optimize for a silly fake number on a wall.


Except there are some things in life that are tied to specific times and that you cannot influence. For instance, buses run less frequently in the early morning where I live, so if I want to go to work earlier, my commute would be much longer. That's just one example but of course there are quite a few other things, too.


Imagine a world in which everybody does everything earlier during the summer, including buses, and we were discussing the convenience of having DST: "but if we move forward the time, the buses will start running before people go to work and they will be much less frequent when I have to leave!".

We need a convenience to which everyone agrees about how to deal with the different sunrise and sunset times. The question is which system is more convenient. But you cannot evaluate one of them under the assumption that everything will work following the other one.


Obviously when “totally not DST” happens the schedules for everything would shift by an hour to accommodate people.


Or more likely the summer-winter scheduled shift in a largely uncoordinated way over course of a month or two.


Not obvious at all.


> Clock time is just a semantic construct. You

Standardized clock time is a mechanism for coordinating social consensus around which social behavior is organized.

> The real, simple answer IMO, is for people to wake up earlier, go to work/school earlier, and go to bed earlier.

Debates over clock time are actually debates over coordination of behavior to make the things you suggest viable, or not, given the external dependencies which effect the incentive and cost structure for individuals doing the behaviors you discuss.


And when/how do you decide to shift working hours around? You’ve basically invented DST except now everyone’s schedules have to shift instead of the clock.

The “silly fake” number on the wall is roughly speaking a sundial that’s been adapted for more precise coordination. Archaic maybe but not arbitrary or fake. If humans started from scratch we would likely invent it again.


How do you schedule meetings without a fake number on the wall? Getting 2 or more people together takes coordination and clocks are a great way to do that.


As much as I don’t like DST (Arizonan, here), time itself is pretty effective low resolution synchronization mechanism for humans. My preference would be to standardize on UTC or metric time or something unrelated to position in the universe and adjust schedules for environmental convenience. A meeting at 4:00pm should be at 4pm (or whatever system of measure is chosen) regardless of where you are.


I think it’s funny that wall clock time is considered low resolution when a unit of human time is like 15 minutes. Like if you had a watch that just went 9:00 9:15 9:30... very little would change.


High ranking Starcraft players can perform 300-600 actions per minute and some gamers can perceive differences between 60fps and 120fps (24fps bothers me, and I can often notice 60hz flicker). Musicians perform, in large groups at similar frequencies - 300-450 notes per minute. Audio that’s unsynchronized by 200ms is easily perceptible.

At a macro level, 15 minute resolution may be fine, but there are many sub-second tasks that humans often perform.


It'd be quite inconvenient while using transport.


Everybody else is at work from 9 to 5. (To a first-order approximation.) I don't have control over that.


He is not talking about you going rogue, he is talking about what each country should do.


But that's just DST with extra steps.


I think it would indeed be less practical, but also more honest. The sun rises earlier during the summer, and we actually start doing things earlier. The DST system is just hiding this so we do not need to change any schedules, at the expense of having to adjust every clock. It looks to me like most people think this is a good compromise, but I do not think the other option is unreasonable.


Daylight savings time neatly solves a nexus of several different problems - permanent daylight savings is, IMO, the superior choice. The problems:

1. A lot of working parents are locked into a fixed start and end time and have little flexibility 2. These parents also rely on school for a significant amount of childcare, and need to be present in the house until their children get onto the bus at the least. 3. So, the school bus needs to show up before the parents leave to get to their 9am job 4. The school bus also needs to be driving during daylight hours for child safety. 5. If children are walking directly to school, this also needs to happen during daylight hours. This is both for traffic safety and for not having children get lost in the dark.

Permanent standard time would necessitate schools pushing their start time back roughly an hour, leading to millions of workers desperately attempting to re-negotiate their working hours with their employers.


No, permanent DST would cause schools to start later.


You've got it backwards. Schools have an earliest solar time that they can start, given the daylight constraints on commuting. Losing the "fall back" of daylight savings time would cause this solar time to have a later clock time, which means that the school has to start at a later clock time in order to accommodate the correct solar time.


Why not use the natural Standard Time (yes, it is natural because it derives from sun dials), but make it mandatory by law that people can choose to get to work one hour earlier.

This would also solve the rush hour problem.


It's not any healthier to have to get up half an hour later in late November than in late October. Switch to Sunrise+N times for daily schedules (school, work...) instead.


Just out of curiosity, how would that work north of the artic circle? I accept there aren't a lot of people up there, but they do exist. Plus, as another commentator pointed out, your schedule would drift daily, and I don't think I'd want to have to manage getting up at, say, 4:00 in the summer for a 5:00 start (~1.5 hours after dawn), and then slowly transitioning to getting up at 9:00 for a 10:00 start in winter.

I, personally, would prefer something along the lines of scheduling half the day before solar noon and half the day after - it's not perfect, since in winter there's fewer daylight hours than working hours, but it feels like the best compromise.


> how would that work north of the artic circle?

Relative to some time set by the government for each day/place after they consult scientists.

> I don't think I'd want to have to manage getting up at, say, 4:00 in the summer for a 5:00 start (~1.5 hours after dawn), and then slowly transitioning to getting up at 9:00 for a 10:00 start in winter.

How do you manage that now (relative to sunrise) when your body seems to be more aware of day/night cycles than 24 hour rhythms?


Not only in the Arctic but also anywhere close.

What do you do when the days are 5 hours long? It's dark at lunchtime? Pass.


This time would change slowly on a daily basis and most people wouldn't remember or want to follow such a dynamic time schedule.


They would love it once they got used to it. Times would be easy to follow using a smartphone / app. I wake up at the time I set in my phone and get reminders for all my appointments from my phone, it doesn't matter what the actual clock time is and how it is set.


This is assuming a lot. What about low income people that don't have smartphones?

I seriously doubt anyone would love time changes like this. If you want to make a schedule 6 months in advance, everything is shifted by a couple of hours.


No, please, no. I already need my phone for way too many things.

I do not know what system is better to deal with summer times, but I hope it's one that can work with simple clocks.


So assuming N = 1 hour in the winter I should wake up at 9am and go to bed at 5pm? And in the summer I should wake up at 6.40 and go to bed at 22.20? No, thanks, I’d rather not.


The proper solution is to skew time slightly every night such that sunrise is always six a.m. every day. This requires 2D time zones.


At this point you've thrown out the utility of time zones and may as well just go back to the pre-time-zone status quo of defining noon in every locality as local noon.


A single time zone within a small state, or two or three within a larger state, still has some utility for local events.

But yes, in the age of smart watches, there’s no reason not to skew time by a few minutes every night for a more consistent experience. Using local noon as an anchor isn’t optimal because wake up time will still vary. I argue that wake up consistency with sunrise is the most important feature for humans.


I'm a big supporter of 2D-defined time-zones, but not for what your're saying.

The overall debate revolve around daylight which change in function of one's latitude.

With an internationally agreed grid (e.g. current longitude division plus steps of 15° of latitude), we may solve those problems easily for everyone, wherever they lives.


The proper solution to which problem?


The problem is that humans evolved to rise with the sun, and anything less is an unnatural stressor.


But humans did not evolve to rise at 6 a.m. What you propose would create way more problems than it solves.


eh. depends where you live. here I'd go summer time all year round, we'd gain quite some light hours in the evening during our free time, business are all using lights anyway in winter so that is not going to save anything giving them some little daylight in the morning


For what is like moderate latitude and up DST makes a lot of sense. Makes no sense around the equator


How about abolishing time zones entirely and using universal time for everything?


Why does this say opinion when it is fact.

The opinion part is that we should have year-round DST.


It’s paywalled, so I can’t read the argument, but what’s important for my mental health is sun in the afternoon—after work. That’s what I really like about Daylight Savings Time.


Yes please.


[flagged]


If we're sharing subjective opinions, one could subjectively opine that smoking, drinking, and overeating are all coping mechanisms to deal with seasonal depression for some people.

In general, I tend to avoid calling people hypocrites--it's a purely rhetorical tactic with no logical value. If a murderer says murder is wrong, does that mean murder is right because he's a hypocrite? Obviously not. Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they're wrong: calling people hypocrites is just an ad hominem attack in most cases.


Not to disagree, but the thought about a serial killer who is a principled vegetarian made me chuckle.


There are legitimate reasons for both, but it seems this will be resolved by gravitating to the opinion most espoused by the media. I Would look for the opinions of NY and London residents (where most journalists reside) as a guide




Applications are open for YC Winter 2023

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

Search: