I'm in BC. The astro-nerd in me would have preferred to see permanent Standard Time instead of a permanent +1 offset. Instinctively, I think morning light is important to our biology for a daily reset and the solar cue of "high noon" is also a real thing. I'm sure I've read that sleep health experts have historically supported a change to permanent Standard Time, not DST.
I respect there are economic arguments for permanent DST. But I question the road safety stat I hear with announcements like this. Kids walking, biking, and being driven to school in mornings in darkness ... that's also what permanent DST gives us.
Oh well, I am in the minority it seems. So R.I.P. "high noon" ... I'll never see you again here. And, yes, I understand that depending on where one is within a time zone, a true "high noon" is only in theory. But it's a nice ideal. :-)
> Instinctively, I think morning light is important to our biology for a daily reset
I'd bet people would happily trade away the inkling of light they get during their winter commute before locking themselves into their office for some extra daylight when they leave that office.
Daylight is most enjoyable if you can actually make use of it.
> the inkling of light they get during their winter commute
It's not an inkling. Unless you roll out of bed and instantly onto your commute, you're getting natural sunlight through all your windows for hours every morning. That's exactly when you need it.
> you're getting natural sunlight through all your windows for hours every morning
Hah "hours". Not in Northern Europe you're not. My commute is dark on both sides. If I had to choose which side I'd prefer to be brighter I'd prefer the end of the day rather than feeling like my daylight has been wasted in the office. I shift my schedule in winter to make up for this as best I can.
I guess. I'm at 46 degrees and civil twilight at Christmas starts at 7am. I get up at 6:30, so yeah, dead of winter, I spend 30 minutes in darkness. But that's better than 1:30.
I guess it kinda hinges on this idea of "wasting" daylight. I don't feel like that. I want the sun to wake me up, and have no problem doing whatever I like when it's dark in the evening. Do people generally go on hikes after work? I go out for drinks. haha
56 degrees here (Denmark, and grew up in Ireland @ 53 degrees).
> I guess it kinda hinges on this idea of "wasting" daylight. I don't feel like that. I want the sun to wake me up
The problem is that during the darkest parts of winter, even if I postpone my wake up as long as possible, I'm still getting up in the dark if I want to be able to commute into work on time. There's no sunlight waking me up.
> Do people generally go on hikes after work? I go out for drinks. haha
No, but I still have to do things like walk the dog, do the shopping on the way home. I find it a lot more pleasant starting out that part of day with a bit of sunlight.
Also, yes, drinks. This is Northern Europe after all.
EDIT to add: Civil twilight in December where I am starts ~07:40, and I also get up around 06:30 (when not dealing with insomnia like tonight).
Also from Denmark, but I would prefer permanent standard time (just like it was prior to 1982); yes, it's still dark in the morning, but at least I won't have to wait months before I start seeing sunlight for my commute. I can only manage the darkness for so long, before the winter depression truly takes hold. Permanent summer time would be devastating to a lot of people here.
> The problem is that during the darkest parts of winter, even if I postpone my wake up as long as possible, I'm still getting up in the dark if I want to be able to commute into work on time. There's no sunlight waking me up.
Russia tried all-year DST for several years and ended up getting rid of it. So even in more-north regions, where you'd think it would not matter, people still do not seem to like all-year / permanent DST (pDST).
07:40 still sounds pretty early when compared to 66 degrees where we could expect the civil twilight after 09:00 in December. You'd go to school at 08:00 in the dark and go home at 15:00, also in the dark.
Bike after work! (own latitude - 45.4N). In the summer the days are long enough that, with daylight saving time, you can be an office slave and still have time for a significant bike ride after work (having biked to work in the first place).
Also at this latitude, without daylight saving time, the sun would be waking you up at 4AM! Totally happy with the time switch, but if it has to go, yes, give me daylight saving time all the time. Winter is dark anyway.
I used to bike commute every day, and rather enjoyed the cold rides home in the dark in the middle of winter. I always have great hear, and plenty of lighting. I guess my weird brain associates that stuff with winter holidays. I like trick-or-treating in the dark too. It just seems like where they belong.
But, what a terrible argument! "I prefer", haha. Oh well.
Yes. Of course. That’s the whole point of shifting the daylight hours.
You get off work and head to the crag to climb a few routes before it gets dark. It’s like a little mini weekend every evening for those summer months.
But yeah, if you never take advantage of that, it’s understandable to want some light in the morning I guess. But yikes, why not go out and enjoy the sunshine?
Yes, I like to exercise outdoors after work. Much more pleasant when the sun is up. Especially if I'm cycling - even with multiple blinking lights, I don't feel particularly visible to drivers.
That said, with the shortest day's light ending before 5pm, even shifting to near 6pm doesn't really help - I'm at the office to 5-ish and if I'm lucky I can be ready to run/bike/whatever by 5:45, so its going dark mid-workout at best.
And I'm up at 5am, so in the dark most of the year. Ditching DST would make it daylight in mid-summer, but I do really enjoy having daylight past 8pm, so I can sit outside and read.
One of the most depressing days of the year in B.C. is when daylight savings ends, and clocks are switched back an hour in November. The sun goes from setting at ~6pm to ~5pm, and you officially end work with it dark out. I'm very happy we are switching to permanent daylight time.
There's nothing more glorious than those late summer solstice sunsets w/ daylight time, where the sun doesn't set until 10pm. Great for festivals and planning outdoor activities with friends.
You sometimes hear that farmers are behind Daylight Savings Time, but that's not true. Farmers are self-employed and can set their hours to be whenever they want. If they need to work longer hours at harvest time, they can just do it. They don't need to monkey around with clocks to do this.
Farming is just the investment part of the job. Unless they're US corn or soy farmers living primarily on subsidies, they still generally have to sell what they grow. The agribusiness side means dealing with the rest of civilization on terms that farmers don't get to set. So do the very non-trivial parts of farming where you have to regularly buy supplies, service equipment, and otherwise deal with employees (yours or others) and their labor regulations.
This description of farming also generally ignores animal husbandry, which outside of factory farms also ties work to the sun regardless of what the clock says, what part of the year it is, or what latitude you're on. When the rest of the world you have to interact with changes their clock, you have to both accommodate the animals' lack of understanding and desire for routine and adjust your own work around it. Dairy farmers aren't putting lighting in cow barns for fun or aesthetics, they're manipulating day/night schedules to get cows on the times that commerce relies on.
That is literally what permanent DST is— benefitting people who like to wake up before sunrise. Night owls want to wake up after it's been light already.
It also improves the rush hours by enlarging the time range. Most jobs start at 9am or later, so if kids also started at 9am or later the morning rush hour (for traffic but also public transportation) would be even worse.
School ends at 3pm so that the teachers, who work a 9-5 like you, get two hours after class to grade homework and prepare lessons for the next school day.
fwiw, getting sunlight from behind a modern window is almost the same as getting it from a led or lightbulb, vastly insufficient. The glass filters out the specific frequencies that are most beneficial to us. You need to get out...
It really depends on your interests: I use daylight for sports after work, really like being able to surf until 22:30 midsummer (52 degrees), so DST works for me. On the other hand, also don't mind the switching between wintertime and summertime, it's just like a minor jetlag we all have no problem with when going on holiday.
>it's just like a minor jetlag we all have no problem with when going on holiday.
I can only say speak for yourself, some of us have major problems with jet lag. Especially as someone on the west coast, I am exhausted any time I have to travel east for work
Well, days get longer without DST too (in countries far enough from the equator, but those nearer to the equator don't have to worry about DST anyway). What bothers me about DST is that just before the clock is moved forward, the sun starts rising before I have to get up. Then the clock is moved, and suddenly I have to get up when it's pitch dark again! Great...
This whole debate is cyclical[1]. I expect in a few years everyone will be complaining about not enough daylight in the mornings and DST seasonal changes will come back.
> Permanent daylight saving time was signed into law by President Richard Nixon in January 1974, but there were complaints of children going to school in the dark and working people commuting and starting their work day in pitch darkness during the winter. By October 1974, President Gerald Ford signed a law repealing year-round daylight savings time.
It's a perfect example of "the public" not really knowing what they want or perhaps different factions (unknowingly) wanting different things and not realizing this until the change actually happens. This isn't helped by how these ideas are often oversold as having no downsides instead of being realistic about what the trade-off is.
I know that I want an end to clock changes more than I want the time zone to be optimized. Both spring and fall clock changes cause a spike in car crashes and serious health events, which I suspect of being worse than the problem they're trying to solve.
Well, I'm not one of those people. I like waking up with the sun and driving to work in the daylight. The idea that DST solves anything absolutely blows my mind. If you want the ability to start your work day earlier and end it earlier, that seems like a worker protection bill that needs to be passed. DST is the kludgiest kludge that ever kludged.
Where I live June sunrise (with DST) is 5:11am and sunset is 8:21pm (a city on the American east coast). I just can’t imagine a majority of people would want 4:11 rising and 7:21 setting.
In June, they wouldn't. That's why we currently change the clocks. But changing the clocks sucks, so you have to optimize for either the winter or the summer.
In the summer, we already have lots of sunlight regardless, so it doesn't make sense to optimize for that.
Winter sucks anyways when you live in the north. I grew up at 56 degrees north and you are cooked no matter what is done. Better to optimize April-October.
It's always annoyed me a bit how everyone talks about sunrise in winter and sunset year round, but sunrise in summer is almost never mentioned. This is the sole reason if we settle on one or the other I want sunrise later.
There's a noticeable increase in sleep disorders and related conditions in the far west of the single time zone [0]. I think when it's on the order of a single hour's shift for daylight savings the effects are pretty negligible but they are measurable.
The thing about DST is it makes every scheduled event move, all at the same time.
It shifts my contracted start time at work, my first meeting, when places start serving lunch, when my kid needs to get to ballet class, when my sportsball club meets, and when the supermarket closes. All at once.
Lawmakers changing the time shown on clocks is, I think, a lot easier than society changing the social contract.
Not sure how well that works in China, but I like that when I travel I can have a similar schedule compared to home.
I wouldn't want to have to learn a different schedule such as getting up at midnight, having lunch at 04:00 then going to bed at 15:00. That would also make jet lag much worse because you wouldn't be able to rely on your watch to know what activity you're supposed to be doing at the time.
> If you want the ability to start your work day earlier and end it earlier, that seems like a worker protection bill that needs to be passed.
I don't think that's very realistic though is it? School times are fixed and that anchors a lot of families to those specific times, and businesses tend to have set hours.
Changing the time to give people more light in the evening frees up a bunch of people to enjoy some sunlight without making it a whole fight to have different hours at work.
School and the workday already awkwardly don't work together. Schools often end an hour or two after the traditional work day. It wouldn't be crazy to have an effective 'DST' via just adjusting the school start/end times -- start at 10am for part of the year dammit.
It's the obvious real solution that sidesteps all the personal-preference-driven claims on what option is "objectively" better/healthier/whatever, but corporate society isn't ready for it I guess
Yeah I don't agree with this at all. I want the light when I'm getting up in the morning. When I'm coming home from work it's the end of the day: I'm tired, I'm hustling home to do errands or chores or make dinner, I'm probably going to spend that time inside anyway because that's where the things that I need to get done are, and if it it's going to be cold and windy, it's going to be cold and windy in the evening. I much much prefer daylight in the morning and I like when noon is actually noon (+/- depending on longitude). I'm not looking forward to the time change and I'm not looking forward to the sun setting at 9 PM.
If it wasn't for that damn 9 AM Monday meeting (ugh) I would just keep my clocks sent to standard time and start work an hour late in the summer.
It's weird, my opinion is the exact opposite from yours, but for the same reasons. When it's the morning, I haven't had the time to get tired yet. So I don't care yet, I don't require the sunlight at that time of the day. And it's always a better feeling when there's only a bit of darkness left before sunrise, when the alternative is feeling like the day was wasted as you step outside and it's already night out. Depending on your timing, you may also see the sunrise while commuting to work, which I find enjoyable.
In the evening I'm tired, so I want the extra sunlight to cancel that out a bit, and I want it so I have more opportunities to do things after work. No one is going to do anything for fun in the morning, so giving the light to that time period is wasting it. I want it after work, so I can go somewhere, enjoy the extra warmth, just be anywhere besides home and work.
Same here at 52 degrees, the evenings feel so much more useful when the sun is out than in winter when it is dark, an hour extra sun would be massive.
So I am wondering what the percentages for these preferences are, is t 50-50 split or is one dominant? You'll piss off part of the population any chocie you make nayway, but at least in the European (non-representative) polls they found 80% don't want the twice-yearly switch, so it would be progress anyway?
You are very lucky to have a strong circadian rhythm that doesn't require light in the morning then. Not all of us work that way. If there is no light in the morning I find it very hard to get up and function. Where I live, if we adopted permanent summer time the sun wouldn't rise until 9:45 in the dead of winter. I couldn't handle that many hours of complete darkness at the start of the day.
> In summer 2019, the Province conducted a public engagement on time observance that saw participation from a record 223,000 people, with 93% supporting adopting year-round DST. Similarly, across all industry groups and nearly all occupational groups, support for year-round DST observance was higher than 90%.
We have moved to permanent DST some years ago, and in December and January I wake up and leave home at darkness. Also, since days are so short, I leave office at dark, too.
My body is strongly solar powered. I can't wake up, I can't get up to speed mentally, my brain and body can't work until it sees sunlight.
Body's circadian rhythm needs that light, and artificial replacements doesn't cut it, because it's not only light for my body, apparently.
This behavior is not dependent on my vitamin levels, either. My body is an avid consumer of B, and I take the whole family and then some as supplements. My energy levels visibly increase when I start to wake up with daylight, regardless of what I take.
While many people disagree with me, I'm in this body for more than 40 years now, and I believe I know at least a couple of things about how it works and behaves.
So yes, we should start respecting nature more. Optimizing for numbers doesn't cut it.
The problem of offices is not when we spend time in them but rather that we spend time in them at all. What a banal hell it is we have consented to endure compared to the comforts of our homes or of any space actually designed for the wellness of human beings or even focused work.
Except for people like me who struggle to wake up before dawn. And whether people prefer light after work doesn't change the available scientific evidence which suggests there are significant negative health effects of waking up too early relative to sunrise, but no significant health benefits from having sunlight hours after work. People's preferences in this case are generally only mildly held and typically are not well informed by the science. I suspect if more people were aware of the deleterious health effects, their stated preferences would change.
Time is an arbitrary construct in the sense that the mere lack of arbitrary change in time is a net benefit.
I.e., anyone who doesn’t like the change in either direction can just change schedules accordingly for business hours. Whether that means 8-4 or 9-5 or 10-6 is irrelevant. The fact that we would stop altering schedules twice a year is a positive.
I've seen arguments about kids going to school in the darkness being thrown around a lot, but I've never understood why that (against fresh drivers) is always taken to be worse than kids coming home in the darkness (against exhausted drivers).
Average school start/end times in BC are 8:30 AM and 3 PM. Standard time in Vancouver puts sunrise/sunset at 8AM/415PM at winter solstice for standard time. That's 30 minutes of daylight before school and 75 minutes after school. IOW, kids are more likely to be walking in the dark in the morning, even with standard time.
Switching to daylight time will switch sunrise/sunset to 9AM/515PM, guaranteeing kids will be walking in the dark in the morning.
yeah the 4:15 PM sunset actually means it's getting dark at 3:30 PM. Pretty ridiculous. For everyone like "the kids have to walk to school in the dark!" it seems like they aren't considering that kids generally don't care at all what the morning is like because their day is about to be consumed by an obligation they never agreed to (school). When they're finally free for the day, it's effectively dark outside. The perspective among my peer group when I was a kid was that daylight savings system is totally clueless, has never made sense, and we should permanently switch to the schedule that allows more daylight after school (aka DST).
But we care about the kids. It's not about whether or not the kids are having a good time, but whether or not groggy people on their way to work can see them.
Speaking as growing up in Fort St John, BC, sunrise was after school began, and sunset was before school was out - more or less - in the middle of winter. But then, that city (in BC, and nowhere near as far north as that province gets) - is rather more arctic in every sense of the word. But then, that corner also opted out of time changes, so ... the rest of the province is catching up :)
Switching to daylight time makes more sense in Eastern BC than it does in Western BC. But Eastern BC is relatively unpopulated. The population of Penticton is 40,000 vs 3,000,000 in metro Vancouver. Second largest metro (Victoria) is west of Vancouver.
Penticton experiences sunrise/sunset about 25 minutes before Vancouver, so their kids experience approximately equal amounts of sun before & after school on the winter solstice.
Why change the clocks when we could change the definition of school time, business hours, liquor/gambling licensing hours, construction noise hours, etc? Just use standard time and then base our society around the physics of the sun.
The reason for daylight savings, as batshit insane as it sounds, is that it's easier to authoritatively tell people what time it is, with a one-hour jump twice a year, than to tell people to change business hours twice a year for a better experience around daylight.
It's absolutely fascinating from a psychology standpoint.
My one big hope for when countries now stop doing the stupid clock change thing, is that people become a lot more flexible around business hours and school hours, and adapt a schedule that fits people.
"…easier to authoritatively tell people what time it is, with a one-hour jump twice a year,…"
Exactly. Also, changing business hours to suit specific work conditions would ease traffic congestion. For instance, a farmer would milk cows at different times of the year. Similarly, milk tankers would be on the road at hours set by cows' routines.
In addition to the reason already given (kids get home before the evening traffic picks up), another reason is that generally driving conditions are worse in the morning than they are in the evening so if there isn't enough light for both the morning and evening drives to be in light it is safer to give the light to the morning drive.
Generally the coldest part of the day is just after sunrise. The warmest part of the day is typically in the early afternoon, around 1-4 pm.
This makes a few driving hazards more likely or more intense in mornings, including fog, sleet, and ice. Also tires have less traction when they are colder. In the morning it is less likely for snowplows or earlier traffic to have cleared paths on secondary roads.
Driver assist systems tend to have more trouble with sensor fogging, frosting, or icing in the morning.
That's not to say evening is a piece of cake. Evening tends to have denser traffic which increases the risk of accidents. Places that are in shadow for much of the day might maintain ice while most of the morning ice melts, or might start developing new evening ice earlier than places the heated up more in the day which could be particularly bad--if most of the road is ice free in the evening people might let down their guard.
> kids get home before the evening traffic picks up
When we change the general time, this applies to school days as well as office hours, so the kids go home to evening traffic relation will stay constant.
How many people roll out of bed, rush out the door and jump in the car before they're actually awake? In my circles, that would be a larger percentage that of those that get up with plenty of time to wake up. I'm not sure any time of the day is safer regarding attentive drivers. Especially if we're going to consider idiots on their phones while driving.
There is still a typical morning routine of an hour. How long do people need to wake up? If they are chronically tired is this going to get better through out the day?
Personally, I need multiple hours. I'm not the type to open my eyes, jump out of bed, and hit the floor running. I'm more the type of "fuck, why am I awake?" but then at the end of the day if there's stuff to do, I can be up for a while. So I'm much better at night than in the morning. Even if I'm my keyboard at 10am, I'm still not up to speed. My best comes later in the day. I think part of that is I've worked for places for so long that I was in meetings all day, and never got to do my actual job until late in the day when everyone else was winding down.
I agree with you. I also need to shout at the clouds on this because the experts who make the argument for time changes drive me crazy.
I live in Calgary. At a previous grade school my daughter went to, school started early enough that she left in pitch black conditions in winter, regardless of "experts" and their precious daylight savings time.
'You need sunshine when you wake up' is really a ridiculous argument, there is no sunshine even with DST.
Get rid of it. Maybe egg the houses of the "experts" too.
(As for my kids, thankfully, they did remote school during Covid (hence late mornings) and then I moved to a place where the school starting time was later than 8.)
Yes, a lot of griping about "standard time" is really griping about winter. There are fewer hours of daylight in the winter. That's just the way it is. You can't fool time.
Correct. Alas, we've designed our society around the expectation of everyone always getting everywhere via driving. And once you've driven to work, you probably don't have any other real option than to drive back.
One difference between morning and evening: in the mornings, some or even many students must wait outdoors for their bus to arrive, because they live too far away from the bus stop to run out when the bus pulls up. That means they are standing around in the darkness and the cold. In the evenings, they can go straight home from the bus.
> I've seen arguments about kids going to school in the darkness being thrown around a lot
I’m sure there’s some correlation with the time zone, but it feels like a “think of the children!” argument that ignores much more significant factors (e.g. traffic speed and volume).
I grew up in an area outside the US, and quite a bit more to the north. I still remember how for several weeks each year I had to walk to school in the dark, sometimes having issues with seeing where I was walking.
The DST changes abruptly made everything visible again. Around that time we were also getting a permanent snow cover. And the whiteness of the snow significantly improved visibility for the rest of the winter.
So I don't think that the concerns are completely unfounded, but they are probably not as dire either.
Everytime people extoll the virtues of high noon, I ask the same question: why does it matter if the sun reaches it highest point near 12 o' clock? You're awake for 4-6 hours before 12, and you remain awake for 10-12 hours after it. Noon isn't the middle of the day for nearly anyone in the western world.
I understand the argument for having an early sunset, clearly having sunlight when you're awake has an effect. But who cares about having an early high noon, when there's still two thirds of the day left at best?
I think the better question is: If people want to go to work an hour earlier, why the F do they need to change the clock for that? Just leave the house at 6 instead of 7.
And yet I guarantee that with permanent DST, they will start pushing school start times later and later in the morning, then they're all right back to where they started.
Step 1 is to fix the time at any UTC+N. I don't particularly care what n.
Step 2 is adjust all times in society to work with whatever UTC+N we are now stuck with.
I think step 2 will sort itself out, as it has historically. Schools begin at a certain time because of whatever historical reason tied to what timezone we are in. If we change to a different timezone schools should naturally drift towards starting at some other time in the day, unless people for some unrelated reason changed their mind about what s good time for school start would be.
I really only care about fixing the clocks and stop doing the annual changes back and forth. What number should be seen on the clock for specific events during the day, like school starts, can be adjusted later.
To me it feels like redefining the meter to make it better for some particular purpose. For example, it is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299792458th of a second. Why not make it an even 300000000? Or make it perfect to measure say the width of train tracks?
There is value to stick to a historical tradition which is easy to reason about. I like the connection standard time has to the course of the sun. It makes a lot of sense. It serves as a reference. Time does not say when you need to do something. It is up to you and the people around you. Time is just the way you communicate about it
this might be controversial and a sign of growing up in America, but i think its a lot like people preferring Celsius over Fahrenheit. I don't care if water boils and freezes at exactly 100 and 0 degrees, it's easy to know its state by looking at it. But its very easy to understand what temp differences will feel like between 90, 70, 50 degrees F etc compared to 31, 22, and 4 degrees C.
In the same way, I have absolutely zero idea of what 90, 70 or 50 degrees Fahrenheit feels like - literally no intuition, those numbers seem foreign and disconnected from my experience, having always known and used Celsius. Celsius temperatures just make sense to me. It's literally just about growing up with it.
It's what someone might come up with without a scientific definition. Think of 0 - 100 F being (very very roughly) the survivable range for humans without special precautions beyond normal winter/summer clothes. -18 - 38 C is way more arbitrary from that perspective.
They said there's no intuition there, I gave them one. I didn't say this was how it was defined, just how it could make more sense in daily life than the Celsius range without relying on familiarity.
- 0C - 30C are nice round numbers that are much better numbers for human comfort than 0F and 100F are.
- above 0C in the winter means "it's going to be messy outside", and is the most important number.
- 100C is an important number for cooking
- a degree C is a reasonable interval. People using degrees F tend to round to multiples of 5, which is too large especially around room temperature, but a single degree F change is imperceptible.
So because we're used to it? I know perfectly how those C numbers will feel. Haven't got a clue about the F numbers.
Anyway, I doubt that that analogy goes for noon. I eat lunch by the clock, not when the sun's highest. I expect most people do. Especially the ones that are cooped up in an office during the daytime.
As someone who grew up in America but lived abroad a few years, you just start using different markers but it's the same idea. Something like 0, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 gives you the full range from freezing to pleasant to very hot.
> I'm in BC. The astro-nerd in me would have preferred to see permanent Standard Time instead of a permanent +1 offset.
So would the folks who study circadian rhythms:
> Over much of the highly-populated areas of Canada, the sun would not rise until about 9 am in winter under DST, and the daylight will linger an hour later in summer evenings than under Standard Time. As a Northern country, Canada includes higher latitudes where the effects of late winter dawns and late summer dusks under DST would be felt more profoundly. What long-term effects on health can we expect from year-round DST? As predicted from our understanding of the human biological clock, our brain clock will try to synchronize to dawn and push us to go to bed later. However, our social clock will force us to wake an hour earlier in the morning. Will this have any health effects?
> We have good evidence for the negative impact of being an hour off of biological time, and this comes from studies on the health of populations living on the edges of time zones. We have arbitrarily divided the earth into one-hour time zones, so that people on the east side of a time zone see the sun rise an hour earlier (according to their social clocks) than people on the west side of the same time zone. Researchers have analyzed the health records and economic status of those two populations, and have found poorer health outcomes on the west side: increased rates of obesity and diabetes, heart disease, and cancer (Gu et al., 2017). Moreover, people on the west sides of time zones earned 3% less in per capita income (Giuntella and Mazzonna, 2019). What could account for this? As predicted, people on the west sides of time zones go to bed later than people on the east sides, but then have to get up at the same time in the morning because of fixed work and school schedules. Therefore they lose sleep: about 20 minutes per weeknight, which adds up to a significant sleep debt over the week. We know from other research that sleep deprivation negatively impacts health and workplace performance. We can already see the negative impacts of a one-hour difference across a time zone, and year-round DST would put our social clocks another hour out of alignment with our biological clocks.
I guess northern Europe must be an unpopulated wasteland where everybody's health just instantly declines.
I find these explanations to these studies so bizarre. We know that there are large populations living significantly further north, who don't get sunlight in the morning in winter, no matter whether there's DST or not. We also know that they get almost perpetual light during summer. If these explanations were true then you would expect a country like Sweden to have an impact on life expectancy and illness from this. But it's not. It's about as rich as Canada and has about the same life expectancy.
The European Biological Rhythms Society (EBRS), European Sleep Research Society (ESRS), and Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) put out a joint statement that recommends all-year Standard Time in the EU:
Cities in northern Europe, like Stockholm and Oslo, already have sunrise times as late or later than Vancouver will have under permanent DST.
If the effects of shifting the clock an hour are as extreme as purported, then we should already see those negative health effects in populations that live their entire lives under those conditions, but we don't.
Do we know that we don't see adverse health effects on those populations? I couldn't find any studies on the subject. I think it would be very hard to measure, since you can't really compare without comparing populations of different countries, and at that point any effects can be attributed to a myriad of differences between countries.
I'm not missing the point: the various various folks who study sleep and chronobiology would have (I hope) reviewed all the literature, including studies that cover northern Europe, before coming to their all-year Standard Time conclusion.
A position paper from Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) in Journal of Biological Rhythms cites Russian data for example:
> Borisenkov MF, Tserne TA, Panev AS, Kuznetsova ES, Petrova NB, Timonin VD, Kolomeichuk SN, Vinogradova IA, Kovyazina MS, Khokhlov NA, et al. (2017) Seven-year survey of sleep timing in Russian children and adolescents: chronic 1-h forward transition of social clock is associated with increased social jetlag and winter pattern of mood seasonality. Biol Rhythm Res 3–12.
Last time I checked a map (parts/lots of) Russia is just as north as Finland, Sweden, and Norway, and still the Russian government decided to rollback all-year DST.
Perhaps the effects differ in magnitude depending on geographic region, but as a general rule all-year Standard Time appears to be the best policy for most people most of the time.
I mean it's possible for there to be bad health effects from something without it outright killing everyone. This is why things like hygiene are tough! You can have terrible hygiene and still be alive for a long time.
Perhaps if Sweden adopted a different policy it would have an even longer life expectancy!
> Perhaps if Sweden adopted a different policy it would have an even longer life expectancy!
The policy of being between 55 and 69 N? I'm not sure the world is ready for another viking age.
Joking aside, GPs point was that Sweden has long nights and long days. Based on the studies you'd expect life expectancy to be worse there than in more Southern parts, like most of Canada. It isn't.
About 50% of people want permanent standard time, 50% want permanent DST, 50% want to keep time changes. Doesn't add up? That's the point.
Everyone finds arguments that suits them. Some will quote "sleep experts", others will mention economic reasons, others will talk about road safety, each one with studies proving their point, peer-reviewed for the most sophisticated.
My take is that we are all different, and whatever you choose, some people will be better off, others will be worse off. There is a high chance that that variety is an evolutionary advantage, at least it was for our ancestors, as a group where everyone is sleeping at the same time is more vulnerable. Not great for office hours though.
In the winter I can see arguments both ways (though I'm personally in the evening light is better camp). But in the summer, it already gets light earlier than almost anyone would want to be awake. An extra hour of sunlight at 4am is little benefit to anyone, and likely just makes it harder to sleep. Light evenings in the summer are wonderful though. I think part of the health argument against DST is that those light evenings make it harder to get to sleep at night, which is fair, but I still wouldn't want to give them up!
But I think the scientists have made a mistake in their communication: They focused too much arguing against the clock-shifts, and didn't put enough effort to communicate why also permanent DST is a bad choice.
Also in BC and I agree completel;y. The one hour offset seems strange. The trouble with any time change is that I still wake up a couple hours before the sun in the morning in the Winter in Vernon and in the Summer I couldn't get up early enough for a sunrise. I try to get out as much as often during the day in the Winter as I am sure I am starved for the Sun in the Winter. Was much tougher in Calgary
And every argument I hear from the pro DST group is really just an argument for ending adult work at 15.30 rather than 17.00 and maintaining a 9.00 start time.
It blows my mind that we are all meant to wrap our lives around bullshit jobs.
I live in the Yukon so will now be in sync with BC time again after this change. The concerns about commuting to school in the dark seem almost comical, given the experiences of everybody here with the winter darkness.
For other reasons, I also wish we were closer to solar noon though. High noon is actually closer to 2pm here and seems to push the whole day back in the summer. The best (warmest) parts of the day get pushed too late into the afternoon.
I'm really curious how people will feel about it after experiencing a year of continuous PDT. I expect I'll personally like it, but the polling will be interesting for sure.
It's purely personal, but my body really seems to prefer daylight savings. I always have very rough and fluctuating sleep schedules during the winter. They seem to go away after the spring ahead (it could just be the longer daylight hours that become more apparent during spring). Greetings from Mission!
Yeah, I would argue strongly it's just because you have more sunlight during daylight savings. Having the sun rise later in winter would just make your sleep worse.
If you wanted to test this, try setting your alarm one hour earlier for a few weeks in winter and see if it makes you feel better.
I would prefer you simply adjust your personal schedule (yes, it’s far more likely the shorter daylight and probably insufficient Vitamin D) than that we permanently turn the one hour offset from high noon of the sun…the very basis for time itself coupled to the natural phenomenon of earth’s rotation … into the standard now.
“Daddy, why is the sun at its highest point at 1300 and not noon like since the beginning of time?” … “because right before humans destroyed themselves they became idiots and lost their mind and started being confused about their genitals, time itself, whether they should be alive or not, and even tried convincing themselves that the Big Arch burger was not disgusting food-product slop; that’s why, my AI robot son, that’s why!”
Speaking of, I've recently started using a daylight therapy lamp 10k lumens @ 10-30cm for at least 20 minutes within 1 hour of waking up: the first few days, the effect is dramatic. Later, when the body is readjusted you don't feel it as vividly, but if I don't do it for a few days I can feel my mood and energy drop. I recommend everyone who doesn't get much light (bright enough to make you squint) in the morning try it.
Don't get discouraged by being in the minority in one particular forum, specially when specific angles dominate.
People put different weights to different arguments.
For the Spain argument below. I actually think it's quite uncomfortable to be +1 and +2 in daily life because people leaving office at 5pm are actually leaving at 3pm under scorching sun. The difference of having light until 23 instead of 22 is negligible in a country that is still up at night in winter.
I can't cite anything at the moment but from what I can recall, economic benefits of switching during the year have not been as tauted and the cost of changing every year has been harmful in many ways (operational being one), but I think here the discussion is where should countries land.
I hope that a country like UK doesn't decide to switch to +1 and the same for Europe, further separating themselves from the American continent countries with the focus on summer sunlight where summer already has a huge window of sun and people often tend to want to escape that heat.
I'm in favour of PDT from a forward-thinking perspective.
With climate change causing extreme heat events to be more frequent, having the sun rise later in the day will defend the work hours of those who find themselves labouring outside without having to adjust the hours that they work.
I live a bit north of Whistler. BC is rather larger than the UK but it is very roughly the same in north/south extent. Yeovil (Somerset) is about the same lat as Calgary, next door to you.
Unfortunately we live on an oblate spheroid what spins around the sun and its a bit tricky when the sun comes on and is switched off. It doesn't help that the basted planet is tilted to the ecliptic too so we end up with daylight/nighttime procession and all that equinox/solstice bollocks. I live quite close to both Glastonbury and Stonehenge. People have some pretty odd ideas about reality, let alone time in these parts 8)
The "perfect" solution is of course moving the clock continuously and keeping 12:00 fixed to peak daylight. Sadly that wont work too well when the time changes every 50 miles or so!
No one will ever be happy when it comes to fiddling with clocks - that is the way of life. There is no right answer for everyone and never will be. I might accept an arguement based on road fatality statistics but not much else and then you'll get some sort of economic based falacy in response.
I don't get how having "random" things change opening hours is any better than changing clocks.
I'm not a parent, but I can imagine that if some of my schedule had to change by 30 minutes some months out of the year, I'd find it more inconvenient.
What if school starts/ends at a different time but my job does not?
What if I have a standing appointment at a business that keeps its hours year round that now conflicts with one that changed to winter hours?
It seems more like a different set of problems than a solution.
It is completely obvious to me. There is only one uniform time, and thousands of arguments for what is a good time to do this or that. Reschedule things to work better. Don't force everything else according to some most important thing
As a fellow astro-nerd you are much calmer about this than me! DST is just a way to uniformly enforce "summer" and "winter" hours of operation on everyone.
If all the evidence supports starting our activities later in the day during winter why don't we just... change the start time of our activities rather than all our clocks? Why stop at one hour ahead? Let's add three hours to standard time...
I agree with everything you write, and in principle I'd prefer just to stay on standard time forever.
However for my selfish individual interests: I work with a lot of people in Europe, and this change to permanent DST will make the time difference once hour less for 4 months a year… until the rest of the world goes this way too, at least.
> Instinctively, I think morning light is important to our biology for a daily reset and the solar cue of "high noon" is also a real thing.
You know, you can just set your watch to whatever you feel like?
> I'm sure I've read that sleep health experts have historically supported a change to permanent Standard Time, not DST.
What difference does it make? If people want to get up later or especially earlier, they can, no matter what the 'official' time is.
For an example: Spaniards and Poles are officially in the same timezone, but the Spaniards do everything 'late'. At least when you only look at the clocks; not so much when you look at the sun.
I don't get why we just don't cut it down the middle. Go +0.5 offset and get a little bit of both. Love the idea of no one being able to do the math when talking to people outside the province. I can't tell you what time it is in mountain time, NFLD, or Saskatchewan. Nothing bad comes of it.
Or just have schools change their hours as needed.
Time changes are just a hack to make every business change their effective office hours back when the sign on the door - and coordination - mattered. Today brick and mortar is way less relevant. Way more people are working from home or going to work at random hours. The time change doesn't affect going to grocery store or restaurants or the gym. It's basically just schools, banks, and the DMV.
Why not have a given entity change its hours through the year, if the relation to the sun actually matters?
(And no, I don't buy that there needs to be time coordination between schools, since they are all already slightly different anyway. Different kids have different after school programs different days. Different parents are already going to work different hours. There's no way to coordinate for everyone to be happy, ever.)
I don't know what time the sun rises in BC, but during the summer the sun rises here at 5 o'clock in DST. That would be 04:00 without. That means people (not everyone can darken their room sufficiently) waking up really early, and that can't be healthy.
That's admitting it's bad for your sleep. So why would sleep experts say otherwise? Why do they think an early sun rise is better? Perhaps it's situation dependent.
That massively depends on where you live. The northern most city of British Columbia is Atlin and during some parts of the year the sun doesn't rise until 9:54 AM.
If you take into account places further north than British Columbia it gets even more extreme. Barrows Alaska has the sunrise after 1 PM some days. Do you think businesses, schools, etc are going to start at 1 PM on those days?
1) Do ANYTHING you can to stop the clocks being fucked with twice a year.
2) After that is done and stabilised, everything has been updated to non-wobbly time. Now's the time you can start arguing what the exact time zone should be.
Never try to argue both at the same time. This is what prevents the EU from stopping the DST madness.
I'm in strong agreement with this. Even though I'd prefer winter time all year round, I would rather enjoy permanent summer time over switching twice a year. And I'm living in France, so my "winter time" is actually already a DST compared to the standard time (France's timezone should be UTC like the UK, but WW2 changed that to UTC+1 and we never switched back), so the "summer time" is actually a "double DST".
There is no significance to the number 12 on the analog clock outside it being painted on top of the clock face. And even that is completely absent in the digital clock, where hour 11:00 is the same as 12:00 or 13:00 in significance.
So there is zero astronomic reason to fixate noon to a particular number if doesn't suit us, humans.
I'm just saying that astronomic argument is kinda meaningless for the DST discussion, the only thing that matters is manual allocation of light time for the most people as possible, so that a majority of population would receive highly beneficial natural light as much as possible. When the solar high point would happen in that scheme should be entirely irrelevant.
>Kids walking, biking, and being driven to school in mornings in darkness ... that's also what permanent DST gives us.
I think this is the worst thing about it frankly, the kids. And you can't just push the school time back cause it interferes with the parents getting to work.
Times are just numbers, just shift your work hours accordingly. The only real problem is that the people seeing you leave at 4pm and grumble are the same sort of people who don't acknowledge you starting work at 7am. As long as you don't have those sorts of people around you're fine.
Thankfully, this is a situation we don't need to speculate about without evidence. Spain is on de facto permanent DST, serving as a natural experiment. I bet the results support you.
That's partly because it's in the same timezone as Poland. Madrid is further west that London, but London is an hour behind. Moving Spain to permanent DST puts it on the same effective timezone as London.
The clocks should show 4:45PM in Spain if the TZ was right (same as UK), and even so it would still be mostly red-white with barely any green. Poland appears white-green in the map, to have a bit of red it should be in a 1/2 TZ like India.
Minimum daylight (winter) in Warsaw is 7h 42m [0] and in Madrid 9h 17m [1]. Maximum (summer) is 16h 47m and 15h 4m. That is due to latitude and unavoidable. The exact numbers for sunset and sunrise are pushed around by the TZ choices.
Most of the world tends to prefer to not be too far from the center of the timezone (where solar noon matches solar time in standard time). Geographic and political boundaries make it so that often it's more red. The extremes of north and south tend not to care as much because it doesn't matter as much.
I don't think that explains it. The "red" offenders are basically Russia, China?, Sudan, Argentina and Alaska. The only "green" offender is Greenland, which is still large enough to enough red to justify it. I get China, it aligns with the population density. Sudan likely wants to have the same time as Somalia and Ethiopia. Why Argentina? Why Alaska? And why does Russia basically have zones that range from +2 to the +1 offset? They don't even have the excuse of avoiding 2 hour jumps like between Alaska and Canada, because they still have that.
Argentina is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_Argentina - My speculation would be that Argentina (the east coast especially) wanted to be economically synchronized with the coastal cities of eastern Brazil. Buenos Aires and São Paulo being on the same timezone makes it easier for the two of them to do business.
Alaska used to have four timezones. In 1983, they were consolidated into two timezones - Aleutian and Alaska. Being in -9 rather than -10 brings Anchorage closer to the Pacific west coast in its business day with the note that it doesn't matter too much when solar noon is if sun is up for 22 hours or 5 hours.
Spaniards are a lazy bunch of party animals, waking up late and going to sleep late too...
Or the clocks are wrong. Once you realize noon is 13h in winter and 14h in summer, never 12h, things start to make sense. Late lunch? Not really, Sun at same height than Italy, but clocks off by 1.
For the "public image" part of the experiment, the conclusion is easy: bad. Time to change clocks so waking up happens at "3h" in the morning, and become a country of hard workers with no nightlife, because everyone retires "early". Even if discos are full as in the past.
These discussions are always very annoying. People tend to state their preferences without mentioning their latitude, their longitude, or their current time zone.
Anyway, here are my preferences: GB should switch to UTC+0 all year. UTC+1 all year was tried (1968-1971) and was very unpopular in Scotland. School hours are roughly 09:00 till 15:00 and they only get about 6 hours of sunlight in winter up north so local noon has to be at around 12:00. Also, for political reasons relating to Northern Ireland, it is very helpful for GB and Ireland to have the same time. So UTC+0 it is.
Seasonal changes in school hours is a theoretical possibility, but parents of schoolchildren have a hard enough time as it is and lots of other things are linked to school hours. It would be much easier for everyone else to make seasonal changes to their timetables, like just get up an hour earlier if you want to. Nobody's stopping you.
I think part of why people's preferences get so different in different sides of a timezone is as much because the hour-wide timezone is too wide. If you asked people to use a thirty-minute timezone or fifteen-minute timezone agreement would be a lot easier, and a lot easier to match local noon to timezone noon for the most people covered.
Of course, there would be just as many arguments against that because people would hate having to learn that many timezones and do that much more timezone math. We finally have the technology to make that easy for a lot of people (phone clocks auto-sync to local time, for instance; most schedules are posted on websites and have computers involved; fewer analog clocks in general remain in the world).
I do like your optimism but most of modern communication isn’t done via meeting invites from Google / MS Office.
I might say to someone on Slack: are you free at 14:00 UK time? Or organise a time on a Zoom call.
Because so much of modern technology is already soulless, I’d hate to see a future where the only practical way to organise some time with someone becomes via business productivity suites.
In Discord you have Time tags for things like like "Are you free at <t:unixtimestamp>?". There's a well known tool called Hammertime [1] to make it easy to create those tags and copy/paste them into place.
(I miss Hammertime sometimes daily when using Slack at work.)
We could standardize such tools. We could make them easier to use like <mylocaltime:14:00> or <mylocaltime:3/2 2pm>. We have the technology (decades of date parsing experience and date math libraries).
Will we? Probably not. Unless we did something wild like move to 15-minute timezones and force ourselves to.
> GB should switch to UTC+0 all year. UTC+1 all year was tried (1968-1971) and was very unpopular in Scotland. School hours are roughly 09:00 till 15:00 and they only get about 6 hours of sunlight in winter up north so local noon has to be at around 12:00.
Couldn't you adjust the school schedule by an hour to achieve the same effect?
You mean switch to UTC+1 all year while doing +1 on the timetables of all schools and anything else that might directly or indirectly depend on them: childcare for younger children, working hours of teachers and parents, sports activities, public transport, ...? Compared to switching to UTC+0 all year and leaving the timetables as they are, the disadvantages would seem to greatly outweigh the advantages.
The other confusing thing about this discussion is that when you include timetable changes there are quite a lot of options and it's not always obvious which alternative people are comparing an option against. To be honest, the current system with clock changes isn't the worst possible option. Perhaps it's the second best.
Sure, my point is just that all of those schedules are arbitrary. We made them all up.
One way might require less rescheduling, and that's valid, but these discussions out in the world tend to go to "but everyone does X at Y time and it will be dark out!" as though this isn't all made up and changeable.
I also think that learnings from previous attempts decades ago may not apply as strongly today. In the US at least I think people's schedules tend to be much less fixed on the rigid 8am/9am to 5pm in-office schedule than they were 10 or 20 years ago. The number of people out driving at all hours of the day all week speaks to that.
The world used to revolve around everyone being in-office next to their phone during defined expected business hours. Today my mortgage broker is texting me from a coffee shop.
Maybe you could use different timetables in summer and winter, so that only the relevant part of activities is affected, not everything indiscriminately. This would also make it possible to cater to local needs much better instead of simply fixing school hours from 9 to 15 and adjusting the clock that it falls into daylight.
Then local businesses would have to shift their hours to support parents with kids. And before you know it, you’ve effectively shifted everyone’s clock anyway.
That’s not even remotely true.
Plenty of people still wear analogue wrist watches (eg for fashion). Then there’s old clocks in buildings like town halls. And it’s still reasonably common for people to hang analogue clocks in homes like one might a painting.
And even many digital clocks are still dumb devices that need to be manually synced. Such as most kitchen appliance clocks.
Why now? From the Govt of BC press release: "The Interpretation Amendment Act, which is the legal framework that enables the Province to adopt permanent DST, became law in 2019. At the time, government chose not to bring it into force in order to co-ordinate timing with neighbouring U.S. states in the same time zone.
Recent actions from the U.S. have shifted how B.C. approaches decisions that merit alignment, including on time zones. Making this change now reflects the current preferences and needs of British Columbians, and helps ensure the province is well-positioned to thrive, even when circumstances across the border evolve."
Notably Washington state legislated the same change to DST years ago (instead of standard time, the morons!) but the federal government never approved the switch. AFAIK it's still pending. I remain unclear what authority the federal government has over such a matter and why Washington (or any other) state has opted to respect it. What are they going to do if a state just ignores them and switches their clocks?
Sometimes I get the impression that the spirit of states rights in the US has died.
I'm surprised that would be interpreted to include time zones. Units of time, arguably (measures), but time zones? Time zones are not a measure of anything. Time zones do not follow on from definitions of units of time, any more than road speed limits follow on from the definition of a mile.
I would be less surprised if it were the commerce power used to uphold time zone coordination - for the promotion and regularity of interstate commerce etc etc. Tenuous, but consistent with a lot of the other nonsense that's been hung from the commerce power over the years.
Then there's the actual enforcement angle - time zones are just a social convention whereby people in a given area pretend that the time is slightly different than it 'really' is (local solar time). There's no reason local / state government and businesses can't post / operate on different hours, and leave federal bodies to operate on whatever 'federal time' they want. This already happens in parts of the world where the official time is locally inappropriate, such as Eucla in Australia or Xinjiang in China.
Obviously the optimal solution here is to coordinate a time change at all levels of government, but failing that there are other options.
You're saying the federal government granted blanket authorization to switch to the one? So the only reason states wait on authorization is merely obtusely insisting on the wrong choice? (In addition to being impotent.) The more I learn about this issue the more things I find to be angry about.
Indeed, it is my opinion. It's not in the minority so much as it runs counter to what lobbyists with vested interests have loudly promoted. Most people haven't given the matter much thought and don't have an opinion on it (let alone an informed one).
"Morons" was an overly dramatic way of putting it but it is very clearly the technically deficient choice as will be apparent to anyone who bothers to consult the history books. The US already attempted permanent DST in 1974 but quickly repealed it. Russia similarly tried it out from 2011 to 2014 before switching to permanent standard time instead. The UK also tried it at one point before abandoning it. Mexico might have tried it for the longest, from 1996 until 2022 when they too switched to permanent standard time. (Actually I'm unclear why Mexico gave it up. They're far enough south that the difference between the two shouldn't be particularly impactful.)
Yes. States are allowed to ignore "summer time" and remain on "standard time" all year round. Arizona is the usual example cited, they do not change the clocks, and remain on standard time year round.
The special auth. from the Fed's is needed to switch to "permanent summer time" (and, possibly advocating for year round "summer time" gives the state politicians cover to do nothing, because "their hands are tied...").
I read elsewhere this may be partial reason why BC forged ahead. As Canada/US relationship is on the rocks and BC stopped waiting for the US to change.
I think we just needed some government with the balls to go for it and everyone else on the west coast will follow. The legality of DST might be an issue in the US but if we can clear that hurdle then BC could be the catalyst.
I believe both Oregon and Washington have passed bills, but both require CA to also pass so that the whole west coast moves. CA has still not passed a bill.
It is crazy, because there is actually a law that allows us to switch to year round PST if we want (but no one wants that), while we need congressional approval to switch to PDT year round (which is what everyone wants) and the house voted for it, but the senate simply didn't make it a priority.
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
We've already had to ask you this recently so it would be good to fix. I don't want to ban you - your good comments are fine. But bad comments do more damage than good comments add goodness... a sad fact of life.
> Sometimes I get the impression that the spirit of states rights in the US has died.
It was bullshit from day one. The origin of the state's rights argument was slave state's attempting to force free states to round up fugitive slave and return them to the slave states.
The more I think about it the less sure I am if I would prefer a permanent switch to be standard or daylight time. On one hand I really dislike winter months and work starting in complete darkness. So always enjoy the time change and mornings soon after feeling brighter.
But on the other hand come summer I really love getting off work and going to the beach. So I will have more sun hours this way which is big. I really thought they would split the difference and just go 30 minutes but guess that would be challenging for many reasons.
I don't have a source to site, but I'm fairly certain the Canadian government is adopting (and presumably encouraging provinces to adopt) a general policy of explicitly not allowing US preferences to dictate our domestic policy moving forward. Of course, that is indeed in response to recent actions from the U.S. And in that light, this time change was an obvious early move as the only thing preventing it was the trigger based on the US states.
I would have preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight time. But I accept I'm in the minority, and even permanent daylight time is far superior to changing clocks twice a year.
> and even permanent daylight time is far superior to changing clocks twice a year
This paper implies that for health, permanent standard time would be best, and permanent DST would be the worst. And even keeping the current clock-shifting would be better than permanent DST.
"The combination of DST and winter would therefore make the differences between body clocks and the social clock even worse and would negatively affect our health even more."
It's "standard" for a reason. Humanity settled on these numbers long ago because they work best. It boggles my mind why anyone would choose otherwise since what we do at any given hour is arbitrary.
A lot of people hate standard time in winter because the sun sets at 4 or 5, and they want the sun to instead set at 8 or 9 like it does in summer. DST in winter doesn't actually give you the 8 or 9 sunset, it gives you a 5 or 6 sunset (which doesn't get you all that much) combined with moving your sunrise to 8 or 9, which causes its own set of issues most people don't think about.
The last time we went to year-round DST, we stopped almost immediately because people experienced what winter DST was actually like and went "wait, this sucks."
Obviously(/s) the solution is to change to a sunset centered day. new day starts at sunset so people can get up late and enjoy the maxim number of daylight hours.
I always find it strange how particular people are about the numbers attached a purely astronomical phenomena(myself included, but I am pretty hard in the "let the sun figure it out camp"). If they want more "daylight" hours then get up at a time to enjoy them. But people would rather bend over backwards fiddling with the numbers as if that is going to change how long a day is.
I think fundamentally it comes down to energy for me. I have very little energy in the morning so I am not going to harness the pre-work daylight hours to do something outside like taking my dog to the park, biking, or running. For me I don’t actually start feeling energized until maybe 9-10AM.
After work however, I have much more energy to do things outside with the daylight.
After college I moved from the far western edge of one timezone to the far eastern edge of another zone. I grew up with 5-5:30pm sunsets in winter, and now I live with 4-4:30pm sunsets. I moved here 25 years ago, and every single year when November/December come around and I get those early sunsets I hate it. It's one of the reasons I'd like to move away from here.
I know it's just one person's opinion, but to me those extremely early sunsets in the middle of winter are a huge quality of life reduction.
I believe part of the problem is that if you're in the middle or western edge of your zone, the winter sunsets aren't so bad. I suspect a lot of people who would prefer DST year round live on the eastern edge.
I live in Atlanta (western edge of US Eastern time) and permanent DST sounds horrible - the sun would rise at 8:45 in early January. Honestly I'd prefer we be on permanent standard time. Call it permanent Central Daylight Time if you must.
On the other hand, I used to live in Boston (eastern edge of US Eastern time) and those 4:15 sunsets were pretty depressing. Permanent DST sounds reasonable there.
The main driver of people wanting year round DST is so they can have sunlight after work in the winter. Those late sunsets in the summer are awesome too though.
They worked best when everybody were farmers and had to get up early and go to bed early. Now most people don't live their lives centered around noon, our free time comes after our work is done at around 17:00, so having more light in the evening instead of worthless light in the night makes sense.
Farmers have to wake up early because their animals wake up at sunrise and some tasks are best performed at that time. So they wake up before sunrise regardless of the clock time.
Human, like farm animals, are better off if they wake up at sunrise and go to sleep in full dark. At the equator that's easy, wake at 6, bed at 10PM. And standard work hours are 7-3 or 8-4.
So, it sounds like you're actually arguing that the numbers are just a construct and that we should all just use UTC and set appropriate work hours to the times that most correlate to the solar day in our region rather than adjust the clock approximately 1 hour per 15 degrees around the equator and have an International Date Line.
I think this would make way more sense, when they say the Olympic Opening Ceremony start at 18:00, its 18:00 for everyone around the world. No one as to work out which TZ Italy is in or scheduling meetings with Tech Support in far flung locales does not require knowing IST is how far ahead or behind.
> He promoted worldwide standard time zones, a prime meridian, and use of the 24-hour clock as key elements to communicating the accurate time, all of which influenced the creation of Coordinated Universal Time.
The one bit where this would be problematic would be "what day is it?" When does today become tomorrow?
There are a lot of systems that we've built that depend on that distinction. Things like business days and running end of day so that everything that happens on March 2nd is logged as March 2nd. I've encountered fun with Black Friday sales where the store is open over the midnight boundary and the backend system really wants today to be today rather than yesterday (sometimes this has involved unplugging a register from the network so that it doesn't run end of day, running EOD on the store systems, and then plugging the register back in after it completes and then running a reconciliation.).
Other than that particular mess of banks and businesses... yea, running everything on UTC would be something nice in today's world.
Aside on the "changing clocks" and realizing my flexible schedule privilege at a company I worked at I switched my schedule from 8-4 to 9-5 with the change in daylight savings so that I maintained a consistent "this is the hour I wake up".
When people propose switching to UTC what they are actually proposing is that everyone nominally switches to UTC but still uses local time informally in everyday life, which is a worse system than time zones. At least with time zones there is a way to know what time it is in any given place. With informal time you lose that.
No. that does not follow. Abstraction is useful. Having commonly understood terms (in this case hours of the day) that share certain traits regardless of where you happen to be in the world facilitates communication.
Right, but where I live sunrise is in the middle of the night in the summer (around 03:30). Using standard time in the summer gives me one less hour of useful sunlight in the evening, and while it doesn't technically disappear it gets moved to where I can't use it because that's when I sleep. It's the same for people further south as well, another bright hour in the early morning before they wake up is a wasted bright hour that would make more sense in the evening, when most modern humans are awake. The argument "noon should coincide with solar noon" is nonsensical to me, the clock is a social construct and should make sense for how most of us live our lives.
But the social construct of work hours shifted later by more than that one hour during the last century, so this is not what people actually prefer by their actions.
People disagree on whether to prioritize mornings or afternoons in the winter. For the summer, only very few people care if the sun rises at four or five (or whatever), but most people like having long summer evenings. Therefore the summer tips the scales.
Then they are also social activities that you just need to wait for in summer, because they can only happen after sunset. Viewing a movie (outside), sitting around a fire, having a party all just really happen after sunset.
> Humanity settled on these numbers long ago because they work best.
Standardized time zones are a recent invention (late 1800s through early 1900s). Working hours in that period were determined by what factory owners could get away with, and later shortened by pressure from labor movements.
Some time-related practices, like high school in most of the USA starting especially early in the morning are at odds with what research suggests would work best (teenagers on average perform best later in the day than adults or younger children).
It's wise to consider the reasons behind existing standards before changing them, but unwise to assume they're what works best without examining whether that's reality.
We don't use standard time because it works best, we use it because it's "correct" relative to the position of the sun.
Now, standard business hours (9-5 or whatever) were probably chosen for working well in the circumstances where they became standard, and it might be interesting to watch for whether tweaking the clocks leads to tweaking the nominal time of things...
The US decided (and Canada followed) that daylight time was more correct for the larger portion of the year, presumably it's easier to transition the remaining 4mo to daylight than it is to move 8mo to standard.
But also, all the opinion polling (business and individual) was like over 90% in favour of year-round daylight time, so here we are.
> The US decided (and Canada followed) that daylight time was more correct for the larger portion of the year, presumably it's easier to transition the remaining 4mo to daylight than it is to move 8mo to standard.
How is transitioning permanently to one easier than transitioning permanently to the other?
How to transition to permanent DST: wait until we are in DST and then stop switching.
How to transition to permanent Standard time: wait until we are in standard time and then stop switching.
If you adopt permanent DST, the there's a 1 hour difference between the current clock and the future clock for 4 months, and nothing for 8 months. If you adopt permanent ST, the difference between the current clock and future clock is 1 hour for 8 months and nothing for 4 months.
It's a 4 month-hour difference over the year, instead of an 8 month-hour difference.
Personally, I'd prefer standard time, but having all days be 86400 seconds is a pretty great improvement over status quo. I find what most people really would like to change is the amount of time with sunlight in the winter, especially the more north they live... but changing the clock doesn't change the number of hours of sunlight; Vancouver, BC just doesn't have much sunlight in the winter.
If we assume that the ideal time for 8 months of the year is DST and for 4 months is standard, but we want to eliminate the switch, then permanent DST gives you only 4 months out of the ideal timezone rather than 8.
The reason is that with standard time, solar noon coincides with local noon, so the day is approximately symmetric about noon, not regarding atmospheric refraction lengthening the day. It wasn't done on a whim.
Sadly, this isn't really right. Humanity settled on solar time. For somewhat obvious reasons.
Alas, I don't see my preferred method of changing the clock by 10 minutes every month taking hold. Basically ever. :D
I also don't think this is nearly as important for places that are not further away from the equator. If you are on the equator, you are almost certainly fine with no change throughout the year.
That method wont work, that is a too large change that happens to seldom. What you want is a leap second every hour for five months to switch between standard and daylight savings time and back, with a month of constant time around each solstice. That gives you a smooth transition without perceptible discontinuities.
Only works during the day? Which, come to think of it, I'm not entirely clear how humans kept time at night long ago. I'm assuming they learned roughly where some constellations were?
I challenge the idea that 10 minutes is too large of a change?
I accept that it was too many changes back when we didn't have smart phones/clocks controlling the vast majority of time pieces. Even most cars, nowadays, set themselves off of a GPS signal.
Nowadays, though? A surprising number of people flat out don't notice that the time even changed until people tell them about it.
As the other response said, though; if you look at when people were on solar time, the length of an hour just flat out wasn't constant. Such that most animals are already used to wake times changing throughout the year. It was specifically our move to a mechanical method that was constant that is causing this.
To that end, shifting to a change every month would, in many ways, be a step back towards how sundials worked with constant changes. As you say, we could go even more continuous someday. That feels like it would have slightly more complications. But by the time everything is controlled by a central computer like thing, most of them would be completely obviated.
I’d guess that there is less of a need for light at the beginning of the day since most people don’t farm. Personally I prefer more light at the end of the day.
I don't get that argument. The numeric time is just a measure for the state of the sun in the sky. When you choose your day to have ended is completely independent. There is already a high enough variance of people deciding when they go to sleep, that DST is hardly relevant. Some people have dinner at half past 5, some do at half past 8, the hour daylight saving time can't possibly make that difference.
Exactly, here in Spain we have lunch between half past 2 and half past 3 on workdays, which can extend up to 5pm in the weekend and I usually finish dinner at half past ten.
Why? because they decided to be on the same timezone as our eastern neighbors in Europe.
The eastern part of Polonia is on the same timezone and probably have probably the opposite with much much earlier lunch and dinner than we do.
The timezone centered across Görlitz made a lot of sense for the German empire, because it was nearly in half longitude wise and 15° away from Greenwich. It is still somewhat centered in Europe. If you wanted to divide it again, you would need to decide whether the border should be between Germany and France or France and Spain. If you place it between Germany and France, which side will the BeNeLux countries be on? France still has some parts that are nominally in +1 and we don't want to disturb the German-French "friendship", so maybe place it between Spain and France, where there is at least a mountain border? Would that be acceptable? Railways connections between Spain and France are also much less and concentrated than between Germany and France.
It's not just a measure for the state of sun in the sky, it's also a measure for the state of society on the ground. It's an arbitrary number in a sense, but it also strongly influences my schedule.
And yes, we could have all the schools and everything else open later in the winter than the rest of the year, but it turns out it's easier to change the clocks.
But the school schedule does already shift and it shifts later, so in the opposite direction. The policy trend is going in the opposite of what you want to achieve with year-long DST, you could instead vote for the status quo and have the same effect.
Do BC schools have a different winter schedule? That's not how it is where I live, at least. It seems like it would be pretty annoying to have to reschedule activities around getting to/from school twice a year.
I can only comment on some parts in Germany, and no I don't know of different seasonal schedules. I meant that the general trend is for the school day to start later, so that the teenagers get more of their precious sleep. Year-long DST would get them to get up earlier again compared to the sun. This trend is the same for office hours and working shifts, they become later, since people just want to sleep longer. (Which is obviously bullocks.)
Farmers don't care about clocks, they do the work whenever needed. Roosters crow whenever they want. There's literally no point in talking about farmers in this debate.
Yeah they started work at 6. So the working schedule shifted later by three hours, but with year-long DST it will shift back only one hour. Sounds like people don't actually want what they now vote for. My bet is that the work hours will just move later yet another hour in the future.
And that reason was that it was the standard before the standard was rethought. There's no deeper meaning to it.
And we rethought it yet again, should we go on the time standard (DST) that we're already on for ~65% of the year, or the one we're on for ~35% the year.
It should be pretty obvious why DST is the new winner, it's the current standard.
Not that long ago, and we keep fiddling with them. The US time zones were adopted just over a century ago. The dates for daylight saving time were changed less than 20 years ago. Much of Western Europe changed time zones (much of it rather violently) in the 1940s, as did China. The tz database often requires updates for changes.
If you want to go with what was settled long ago, that would probably be a return to each town observing its own time based on local solar noon, which would be pretty annoying.
> I would have preferred permanent standard time to permanent daylight time.
Do you have children?
In past HN threads, the preference largely comes down to whether you have children (and want more early morning light for safer trips to school) or not.
As far north as BC is winter just doesn't have enough daylight to think you can get everything done with sunlight. Maybe Arizona has enough - but they don't do daylight savings time (one of two us states)
> winter just doesn't have enough daylight to think you can get everything done with sunlight
That's the perfect way to say it.
The other piece that a lot of people are missing is the whole larks (early risers) vs owls (late risers) divide. I think the best illustration of that is to ask, if you got your pick, which shift you'd take, based solely on your own body and habits: 8-4, 9-5, or 10-6 (or perhaps even further in one direction)? My guess is that the answer to that question predicts your desire for Standard or Daylight time pretty well.
My guess is that both owls & larks get their preference logically backwards.
My guess is that owls will say they prefer permanent daylight time and larks will say they prefer permanent standard time.
But their revealed preference is the opposite -- owls wake up well after sunrise and go to bed well after sunset. Yet permanent daylight time will shift it so they'll be waking up closer to sunrise and going to bed closer to sunset.
Larks revealed preference is more like permanent daylight time yet I think they're more likely to say they want permanent standard time.
I'm definitely in the night owl camp and I'd much rather have sunlight in the mornings because I already am going to have trouble waking up each morning, making it so I can't even set my circadian rhythm properly is just adding insult to injury.
It amazes me that we actually argue about this based on vibes. We know that people are better off the closer the time between waking up and sunrise.
I don’t have children, but I was a child once. I didn’t mind going to school in darkness (in winter) and enjoy 1h more of daylight in the evening. Having that extra hour of daylight in the morning always seemed a waste for me because I wasn’t doing something I wanted (I was doing something I had to do, this is, going to school)
When we had kids I thought daylight savings time was going to be some kind of nightmare because ever DST thread on the internet cites children as the reason why's it terrible.
Then it was a complete non-issue for our kids. I had this conversation with several parent friends and they couldn't figure it out either.
At most we've had a day or two where the kids wake up 10-20 minutes later than the target time, but it's not a big deal. Honestly it takes me longer to adapt than my kids.
I can believe that some kids are hyper sensitive to clock changes, but the more I talk to fellow parents I think it's a minority case. Traveling a couple states away is a bigger swing than DST.
I think this is a talking point that came up on the internet at one point and then got amplified because so many liked the direction it was going, but never stopped to think about how accurate the claim was.
Me too. Who are these people whose kids' sleep schedules are regular enough that this makes it noticeably worse?
(There was one year where the time change in March did actually have a noticeable effect on my kid... and a few days later, just when she had gotten back to "normal", everything shut down for COVID.)
Some people think that if their toddler misses naptime by 5 minutes it will be a disaster. Fairly sure it's just a vocal minority kind of thing. Totally with you though, our kids never seem to notice.
Start school later. I understand people also have jobs, start those jobs later. I understand people have expectations about when stores open. They can figure it out that stores open when the sun comes up. If they need to plan they can ask when sunrise is.
I don't have children and I prefer permanent Standard Time because I have the apparently weird belief that noon should be at noon.
(i.e. the time 12:00PM should be when the sun is overhead)
I'm not a "capitalism gives you brain worms" kind of person, but the idea that it is somehow better to literally change the location of the sun in the sky because the holy hours of 9-5 are sacrosanct is so strange to me.
I lived once in Ecuador. Pretty much the whole year the sun rises at 6am and sets at 6pm. I very much prefer Spain: in summer the sun sets at almost 10 pm at its peak… best summers of my life.
I lived in Poland once too, where in winter the sun sets at 3pm: I wanted to kill myself
9-5 aren't sacrosanct. When the 9-5 song came out approximately nobody worked from 9-5. Standard working hours were 8-5 with an hour for lunch. Starting at 7 was far more common than starting at 9.
The song is about a secretary who didn't get a lunch hour, so started an hour later than her boss.
Tech workers generally start at 9, but that started decades after the song came out.
Where I live, in winter it's dark in the morning (and also the evening depending on the length of the school day) with and without DST, and in summer the sun is also up either way.
Conversely, I'd rather my kids have more daylight after school so they can explore outside.
Selfishly, I just want as much daylight as possible, which has very little to do with how a government selects a time range for legal reasons. The rotation of the globe has not been yet controlled, as far as I'm tracking.
As a child, there was nothing worse than getting out of school at 3pm and then having the sun set at 4:21pm. I barely got home before it got dark, forget about playing outside. Morning time was useless, since school prep ate that up.
Right? I literally never once cared if I have to walk/ride to school in the relative dark. But I did care pretty much every afternoon how much time I have to enjoy the rest of my free time. Being able to go out with my friends and enjoy the daylight made a huge difference. It's soooo long overdue to put this stupid system in the past.
I don't have children but would still prefer permanent standard time because you don't magically get more daylight with DST. Just finish your stupid job earlier if you want "more daylight".
Changing the time every year cause a lot of accidents involving wildlife. Wild animals learn human activity patterns and avoid the roads during our active hours. When we shift the time we start they get caught off guard and a lot of accidents happen. It takes roughly 2 weeks of adjustment apparently.
BC (and PST) is actually quite reasonable in this regard, with Vancouver and LA being fairly close to "on the money." Contrast that with China and Russia, where clock time can be 2h+ off from solar time.
As a further note, this is one reason it's miserable to be in Boston/Maine during the winter if you're an SAD sufferer: sunset times of 4pm or sooner feel like "insult to injury."
In Białystok, Poland, solar noon is at 11:39.
In Vigo, Spain, it's at 13:46, .
Being in favor of all-year DST (more sun in the evening is just nice), nice to see that those lucky Spaniards already have it and then some.
Whatever the preference for the permanent time, abandoning the switching should be advocated by the software industry. I've yet to work at a company where there are no bugs related to switching the clock. Those bugs have ranged from harmless to pretty severe.
That sounds like an unnecessary EU standardization. Having the same timezone in Poland and Spain possibly made sense 30 years ago, but now that all communication goes through computers of one kind or another, time conversion is seamless.
For those companies that have offices in both countries, and for which the synchronicity matters, it is not that difficult to just have special office hours.
> [The same timezone in Poland and Spain] sounds like an unnecessary EU standardization.
Well, if you look up the histories of the time zones in the respective countries ("Time in Poland" and "Time in Spain" on Wikipedia, I have no reason to doubt their accuracy) you'll see that both settled on CET, with or without daylight savings, long before the EU was even an idea.
> Why are we "saving daylight" when there's more of it?
We're saving it from the morning in the summer, when there's way too much of it while we're asleep, to use it in the evening, when we want to enjoy the outdoors with our families and friends after dinner.
The point is to increase the enjoyment of summer sunlight after the work day is over.
No, the point was to conserve fuel for the winter months. Which was why dst was a wwi directive that was abandoned after the war. We reimplemented it during wwii and just never changed back
I'm talking about the modern rationale, not the historical one.
Also, no, it wasn't to conserve fuel for the winter. It was to conserve fuel during the summer so it could be used in the war, also during the summer.
But it's not like we forgot to change back. It's that we decided we really liked the longer usable daylight in the summer. There have been tons of adjustments to DST since WWII, reflecting the fact that we like it in the summer, and have variously adjusted which months it covers.
The point is, it is literally described as saving daylight, which is what I explained. "Saving" it in the morning to use in the evening. The "saving" in the name always referred to daylight, not to fuel.
Ultimately the arguments between whether one should pick daylight or standard times are a red herring.
The benefits of one over the other usually balance out and in either case are insignificant compared to the problems caused by changing time zones twice a year.
Changing time zones is directly linked with all sorts of health issues, deaths, car crashes, etc.
Changing timezones suck, but sunset happening at 4:30pm before I leave work to go home massively contributes to winter depression. It's like "well that was a tiring day" and then instantly served with _darkness_. It sucks. If you get at least SOME light on the way home, it's a bit of a bright spot in the day, especially if the sunset is particularly pretty that day, as it often happens to be in Canadian winters. So I am extremely happy to see they chose the correct option for mental health of Canadians in the winter, and I really hope the rest of the provinces follow suit.
Chances are it will get repealed because it isn't standard time.
Examples of failed permanent daylight switches:
- USA 70s
- Russia 2010s
- UK 70s
The only examples of failed switches to permanent standard time are Egypt and Jordan.
There are 12 prominent examples with permanent standard time, including most of Mexico, Argentina, Russia, and parts of Australia.
Only the Yukon, Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, and Syria are on permanent daylight time.
DST is popular because people associate it with summer, so it is chosen as the permanent time. Then the population experiences reality of no sunshine when they get up in the winter and hate it.
It’s not just because it’s associated with summer, quite the opposite: many of us just feel that sunset 30 minutes after work in the winter will be less depressing than the sun setting while we’re in the office. And then even more so during the days where it moves from 5:30 to 6:30, that’s enough to actually get out and do an activity.
I get that there are good reasons for morning light too, I’m just saying that I don’t think it’s just an association with summer.
The European Parliament voted to end clock changes in 2019 [1] but it got stuck and nothing happened. Meanwhile, BC just goes ahead and does it. I suppose one can still dream... :)
Unfortunately two very big things happened afterwards:
1. Covid, which caused a dramatic shift in the EU focus and required the Commission to permanently take on lots of extra responsibilities (debt, shared procurement of medical goods and vaccines, way more international recognition/influence, etc)
2. Brexit: Ireland has to follow whatever Northern Ireland does. Northern Ireland's Unionists will never tolerate being in a different timezone than London, and Farage and his cronies in the UK will never tolerate having to swallow down an EU directive for ideological reasons. BoJo was already saying back in '19 that the UK was going to keep daylight savings only to spite the EU. This means that Ireland will almost 100% veto any changes to DST unless London is on board with them.
There's also an underlying internal divergence about what abolishing DST should look like. While nobody in Europe likes daylight savings (the material act of switching), Southern and Northern Europe have a very different opinion about which timezone to keep. Right now basically 70% of the EU is in CET/CEST, so trade and business are frictionless - from the tip of Sweden down to Malta, from Galicia to the Suwalki Gap - all year round.
The issue now is that Northern Europeans generally don't give a fuck about more daylight in the summer - they already have a humongous amount of daylight during the night. What they'd like to do is to keep "natural" time all year around, because summer time would cause the sun to rise extremely late in winter. They'd like CET to become the new central European standard.
On the contrary, in Southern Europe people don't really care that much about sun rising at 7 or 8 in winter but really love the extra hour of sun on summer evenings. This means keeping CEST all year round.
Given that having a timezone between Southern Germany and Austria/Northern Italy or between the Rhineland and France is objectively terrible for the EU economy, nobody is going to propose this ever again unfortunately. I think we're stuck with DST forever unless someone caves - most likely the Nordics. Having basically all of Europe on a single timezone is just too convenient, that's why nobody went back to their previous timezones after Hitler and Franco fucked them up in the '40s and why China is still on Beijing time
Permanent standard time would have made more sense to me, but I get it – humans can't possibly influence fundamental natural forces such as school starting times, TV schedules, museum opening hours etc.
This will never not feel insane to me, it's just because no one wants to say "move classes and work an hour later on [x date]". Somehow changing noon away from noon is a better answer.
"Pacific time" is going to be so confusing though. Should have just called it Yukon Standard Time, since that's already a thing, at least informally. Cause that would not be confusing at all...
Yes, it's going to cause a lot of confusion and missed meetings. At the moment everyone says "pacific time", but now that will mean two different things.
I think we'll need to say Vancouver time or California time.
In my professional experience, having needed to work with relatively unsophisticated people across many time zones, the only thing that worked consistently was "[City] time". That way people could always check 'what time is it in X now' or 'when it's X in [City], what time is it here', and get correct responses.
Descriptors like "Mountain time" are too vague, especially when there are various places that do/do not practice DST within that timezone, or there are similarly named time zones internationally. (Australia has Eastern and Central time too, for example, and in summer - which is northern hemisphere winter - they split into four different time zones due to varying DST practices.)
Trying to be overly clever and exactly specify the time zone, e.g. "MDT", leads to lots of subtle mistakes in my experience. Often people will think they know what that is, and then get it wrong. Or their calendar app will helpfully suggest MST and they'll click on it, not noticing the difference. Or they'll just scramble the letters when writing them down and wind up with "NTT time" or "AT&T time" or some such.
Mountain time is ambiguous due to Arizona, and yet we still use that phrase. Hawaii-Aleutian time is also ambiguous: the Aleutian islands do daylight savings, but Hawaii doesn't.
Casual speech doesn't use the city names (like America/Los_Angeles for pacific time); presumably we'd have Pacific time (America/Los_Angeles) and BC time (an update of the existing America/Vancouver). If Washington's time change ever gets approved it would presumably become simply Washington time (America/Seattle maybe?).
It’s already ambiguous. Just use a city and let your calendar do the rest. New York, Phoenix and San Francisco time are unambiguous in a way trying to name time zones is not.
Everyone else is throwing in there 2¢, so here's my pet proposal.
Here's the undeniable fact: everyone (ok, almost everyone, but it's a rounding error) hates the switchover in spring, when you have to get up an hour earlier. Conversely, everyone (or a rough approximation) likes the switchover in the fall, when we get to sleep in an extra hour. So why don't we just get rid of the switchover in the spring and get rid of the one in the fall?
I hate both. The time jump in fall means sunset starts happening depressingly early (almost exactly 5pm where I am, which means no sunlight after work).
Ignoring the fact itself, doing this in a single province and not the whole country is the really wild thing for me (as a European). I have opinions about DST but having it different per German state sounds much more horrible than anything we have now, no matter how complicated the rules are.
Arizona, unlike the rest of the US, does not observe Daylight Savings Time (good!). However the Navajo Nation, whose territory is largely in Arizona, does. However the Hopi Reservation, which is inside the Navajo Nation territory inside Arizona, does not.
Let me rephrase that:
- The USA does DST
- Arizona (in the USA) does not do DST
- Navajo Nation (in Arizona) does do DST
- Hopi Reservation (in Navajo Nation) does not do DST
I get your point and it's certainly and interesting one. But my point was less "oh my, this is unbelievable" but more a question of how much impact it has on everyday life. Again (like in the other thread) quoting Wikipeda, I see ~10k in the Hopi Reservation and 165k in the Navajo Nation, that's not a lot of people.
But of course your point with Arizona stands and I'm wondering if people do mind. Glancing at the map, the only major city just at the border is Las Vegas and I don't assume a lot of cross-border commutes there.
Well, Canada is a VERY wide country. We have 4.5 time zones across the country, and BC itself is as wide as Germany.
Perhaps even more surprising for you maybe is that even within a Canadian province, its not just one time zone. There are several regions along the border between BC and Alberta that already eliminated daylight savings time years and years ago, so they were on a different time zone for half the year.
I know it's big (I've just not seen it myself), but also it's only 5m people in BC if I can believe Wikipedia. That's like a big city. Maybe that actually makes it less of a problem though, we simply don't know :)
I think if Canada was just two or maybe even three BCs wide, we probably would have settled on just one timezone for the whole country, but the country is so wide that the sun today will set 4 hours and 6 minutes later in Halifax than it will in Vancouver, we just fundamentally do need timezones inside the country, otherwise it'd be a total mess.
Once you start putting timezones inside a country, the provincial borders start to become pretty natural places to put timezones.
And yes, you are correct that the small population makes it easier. Or rather, it's less about the small population, and more about the spikiness of the population. Practically Nobody lives anywhere near the border between BC and Alberta, it's a gigantic mountainous national park the size of a medium-sized European country. Almost everyone in BC lives in Vancouver, and almost everyone in Alberta lives in Calgary or Edmonton. When I lived in Edmonton, it'd usually take me about 12 hours to drive to visit my parents near Vancouver, and if I was in Calgary it'd take around 10 or 11 hours. So putting a timezone change at the halfway mark is pretty much irrelevant.
The strong interconnections and vibrant border regions of European countries are the main reason so much of the EU is in one timezone. If it weren't for that, it'd probably make sense to put a timezone border between Germany and Benelux / France, but that'd be too annoying for everyone, so people just put up with a wide timezone. e.g. this map gives a good idea of where the 'natural' timezone boundaries are, and lets you compare against what people decided on based on political / economic realities.
The US is sort of intermediate here. In a few cases state borders are time zones borders, but in practice they're determined by which big city people are most integrated with and that often oesn't line up well with state borders. For example the bit of Indiana that's closest to Chicago is on Chicago time.
About 90% of BC is nothing but wildlife and trees. You can't really compare it to Germany in any capacity, it doesn't work. Canada has land with literally 0 people on it bigger then the entirely of Germany. The vastness of Canada cannot be understated. Canada is almost 10mil km2, Germany is 350k km2.
Less of a problem in a county that is more or less laid out East to West with massive 500 mile wide provinces. British Columbia deciding to adopt Mountain Standard Time is more or less equivalent to Portugal using Berlin time.
I'm thinking more 'companies in the same country working together' - physical distance does not really matter, imho. Many countries span 1000km and unless traveling in person you don't care if it's east-west or north-south. Coordinating meetings and opening times is different.
Yes, but my experience tells me that you'll interact (on a level where timezones matter) much more with people in your country than in others - and this has nothing to do with small states vs big provinces, I don't know enough about Canada if every big company has offices in Vancouver an Toronto (or Ottawa, Montreal) that work closely together.
Sadly that is not really true in Canada. Most companies in Canada only really work with a small group of close provinces.
BC/Alberta
Sackatchewan/Manitoba
Ontario/Quebec
Quebec/New Brunswick
Nova Scotia/PEI/NFLD/New Brunswick
etc
The big companies have offices in each, but they'll usually break them down even further into eastern, central, western regions. And they'll largely never talk to eachother.
Not really. That might change due to what is going on in the world, which is now seeing provinces having to become serious about expanding into new markets, but in the past sharing timezones with the USA has been much more important for the sake of industry. Again, things are now starting to change, but historically the provinces haven't even had free trade between themselves — despite having free trade agreements with the USA. That's how much they have worked together.
Uncle Steve is the same number of hours ahead that he has always been, and that's a thing that could be looked up just as easily as finding his time zone. I think the author is greatly exaggerating the degree to which time zones solve any of the problems mentioned. Uncle Steve might be on a different sleep schedule from me, regardless of whether or not he's in a different time zone.
Days of the week definitely become interesting in a global UTC system, but noon used to literally mean "the sun is at it's highest point". I suspect that people would grumble for a year or two and then forget that another system ever existed.
There's certainly a bit of dramatization/exaggeration here, but the main point is that it doesn't really fix the stated problem while also being a huge change for everyone to adapt to.
I feel like days are a non-issue; they would just start at different times (UTC) in different territories. This wouldn't make things any more complicated than they already are (currently, if I want to talk to someone in Australia, I have to look up what time it is in Australia and infer the day of the week from that, if necessary. If everything is under UTC, I know what "time" it is, but I still have to look up what day it is).
Most of the issues time zones cause are not "day of the week" related anyways (at least in my experience), so I think having to figure out what day of the week it is somewhere else wouldn't be a common problem anyways.
If everywhere runs on UTC, they will still have different times when people are working/not working/sleeping so you still have to look something up and figure it out.
With time zones, you look up "What time is it?", realize it's 4:30AM and since most people around the world follow similar schedule, you quickly realize he's fast asleep.
Before UTC4ALL: is UB awake? what time zone is UB in? idk, what zone is Melbourne? +11? uh... carry the one... 6:25, maybe a bit early, let's try in an hour[1].
After: is UB awake? he said gets up at 13:30, so call in a couple hours.
You want to call someone, but you don't know when they're available? Maybe you should ask them, so they can tell you it's 13:30 to 4:00, with zero "is that my time or your time" worries. Or check your shared location-aware calendar, which already handles both cases equally well.
How often do you do several-thousand-mile phone calls without knowing anything about the recipient's schedule? Where I come from that's gonna be rude, send an async message instead.
1: yes, the math/calculated time is wrong. on purpose. as an example.
Not hard, visualize the locations on the globe and a pie with 24 slices. If you start work at 12, and you want to know when someone 2 slices West will start you add 2 to get 14. 2 slice East of you, subtract 2 to get 10.
Better than guessing what timezone the region picked when it spans multiple natural time zones, and whether they do or don't have time changes.
Also it's much easier for communication, because if someone sends you a message asking to have a call or meeting at X hour there's no need to know their timezone, because your X hour is the same as theirs no matter where you are in the world.
Ideally, you would be asking what time your specific colleagues start and end work, which could be quite different than the average of people who work in their country.
If only we had UTC 2.0 with UTC-0 set somewhere in the middle of Pacific or Atlantic - UTC would finally have cultural adoption. Setting UTC on GMT was such a mistake.
Mine too. People seem to have are hard time conceptualizing the hour as an arbitrary number, rather than having a static (usually incorrect) meaning associated with it like 12 as noon/midnight.
My dream is everyone has a personal clock based on their GPS location and solar noon is always when the sun is highest overhead wherever they are. Go to sleep and wake up based on this clock and use it for nothing else.
I'll correct myself: it sounds good for about 5 seconds before you think about it and realize it's an unworkable idea which creates more problems than it solves.
I also did that for some time, I just don't perceived clocks to have a single point that is up and mentally rotated clocks all the time. The hours just lost their meaning beyond their numerical value.
>I don't want sunrise to happen at 21:00, noon at 3:00, and sunset at 9:00
but it will happen regardless of what you think about it, the only choice you have is to pretend it's happening at a "different time" because you assign a different number to it
I think this means preparing for BC to go out of sync with the US states we normally sync to (Washington, Oregon, California).
However, there is some hope I've heard expressed that this may push one or more of those states to make the switch as well. Unlikely, but hey, a lot can happen in eight months (as this year is already proving).
US states cannot, under current federal law, go permanent daylight time (they can go permanent standard time, though), and they can't unilaterally make the latter have the same effect as the former by simultaneously switching time zones because they can't switch timezones without approval of the federal Department of Transportation. I don't see the current federal government making special accommodation for California, Oregon, or Washington on, well, anything in the next eight months, so...
I actually agree on how unlikely it is but the wildcard is Trump. I mean, he is the kind of guy who just goes with his gut and he has already publicly supported getting rid of the time change, calling it a "50-50 issue" (on which to go with, standard or savings).
The worse case is he pushes a federal change to standard time, in which case I suspect BC would have to go along.
In germany the terms are Sommerzeit (summer time) and Winterzeit (winter time). Of course everybody would chose the former as summer sound better than winter but the latter is "better" as it corresponds more to "wake up when there is light" which is favorable to health, performance etc.
The report linked in the article has BC support _massively_ in favour of "more light in the evenings" instead of "wake up when there is light", citing health and wellness concerns. "Better" seems a matter of opinion.
That's a very dishonest take, as I'm sure you know that Sommerzeit proponents have reasons other than "summer sounds better than winter".
For example most people just wake up and go to work in the morning, but in the evening they meet friends, BBQ, hike/run through nature, do sports etc., and prefer doing those activities while it's bright outside.
My "very dishonest take" is the result of the polls after the EU parliament voted to stop the time change.
The question in these polls had been which time the person would prefer. A big majority in Germany chose "summer time". So without any reasons given/discussed/researched the preference is summer time.
Of course there are proponents with reasons for or against this or that time but this doesn't matter as the majority does not decide by reasons.
My point is that alone the naming the time "summer" or "winter" influences the preference to a big extent.
What's dishonest about your take is your strawman interpretation of the poll results. Just because you disagree with the majority of people does not mean they simply misunderstand the question and think
"hurr durr summer better than winter, me choosey summer"
Well, at least thats the way I would have responded to the question when interviewed. Maybe I'm dumber or more mindless than the average german.
There were say some 100s of people called by phone, asked a lot of questions about a lot of topics, one of them is "which do you prefer: summer or winter time" - I would have said summer (without thinking to much) because I like the long summer evenings too.
That has nothing to do with misunderstanding the question.
It is of course possible that the average interviewee is well prepared or thinks long and hard before answering without letting the wording influence their answer.
But you should at least consider the possibility that also the german naming (summer/winter) could influence some people (like me) in their answers.
(I think the wording can have a big influence (maybe because of my linguistic background) but you are free to disagree)
What stops you from going to work one hour early, so you get off earlier as well? Most employers these days allow flexible working hours.
And if we are permanently moving our clocks to advance by an hour, why stop at just one hour? Why not have +2h or +3h so we get even more brighter evenings.
"Most employers" definitely don't allow flexible working hours. You have to be in specific sectors – basically just "modern" tech companies – to have that privilege. And that is a very tiny slice of the working population.
Because most people don’t have that degree of flexibility. When I was commuting I’d have been happy to have double DST or whatever you want to call it.
I live in Köln, and the reason people want to move to Sommerzeit year round is that during Winterzeit near the solstice, the sun rises at 8:30 and sets at 16:30, which means that most people are not getting any daytime sun if they work inside.
They get a tiny bit of sunlight right as they arrive at work, and then when they work all day, step outside and the sun is already gone, which is really depressing. Many many people look at this situation and decide that if they have to choose between light before work or after work, they'd take the light after work.
Im very healthy and performant during sommerzeit. It’s in winterzeit when I get depressed bc there isn’t enough daylight in the evenings (it gets dark around 3pm-4pm in winter… that sucks big time)
It's worth noting that in China, where the whole country is on a single timezone (which is roughly solar time in the eastern part, but far from it in the western part), places in the west simply have a different notion of time.
WA didn't stall, it's not within WA's jurisdiction (unless it wants to go against the federal government). Also WA isn't going to do it, and shouldn't do it, unless California does.
I suggest installing Sun Dial on youres smartwatch. Especially when daytime is 4 hours, it somewhat aleviates the "eternal darkness" brain fuzz. I try to be awake on those few hours, and do not care about those other dials.
There is Sun Dial right there on Zepp Watchmaker on "editable components". From 9 to 15 seems to best amplitude as it reflects the sun's movement on the skies.
Another falsehood programmers believe about time. A stopped clock is only right twice a day if it is a 12 hour clock and only if it’s not set at a leap second or at a skipped time during the shift from standard to daylight time.
Haven't met him personally, but it's nice to hear he's as regionally popular as he is. I'm just going off the fact I've seen him around and he's often documenting nearby streets. It's good stuff and super informative.
A few years ago I was against changing the time but now I tend to even suggest a full two hour change! In the developed northern hemisphere the summer/winter daylight difference is huge (about 2 hours in the morning and 2 in the night) with a short time of equal length. Maximizing sunlight exposure while the people are outside is vital, mainly for psychological purposes. That means let the light begin at about 7-8 all year long and let summer afternoon extend as much as possible. No kid leaves home before 8 and the 6-in-the-morning drivers will pay attention all year long and not only during the winter. But all types of people will enjoy the long summer afternoons.
I fully support removing DST (as a parent at least, it's a PITA twice a year).
However, clocks should show noon correctly, as best as they can within your chosen timezone. Also, I really like long evenings in the summer to get outdoors and go biking or hiking. It follows that we should abolish DST, stick to the correct time, and move regular school and business hours back one hour.
School and business hours are already fairly arbitrary where I live. The only places observing "standard" hours seem to be banks and even many of those stay open later in the evening these days. Meanwhile the schools do everything based on juggling a limited number of busses meaning that start and end times are staggered over a period of 3+ hours. You see evidence of this in traffic patterns as well. It starts early with the trades and runs well into the late morning due (AFAIK) to tech.
Not all of British Columbia can make the change. BC's northeast and much of the Columbia-Kootenays are presently on Mountain time, which means that the Province of Alberta holds the choice of when/whether their own and those BC areas go to a permanent time. Then AB would have to sync with Saskatchewan along their borders, but SK is already on a permanent time zone system. Decisions, decisions.
I think regular time is always the correct option.
If you want to move work start time. Regulate that. Schools, government institutions and public transport can all be directed. The rest will likely follow on recommendation. See for period of time and allow those that want to re-adjust again for their needs.
I don't like switching to daylight saving and back but I'd rather have that that permanently moving to +1. Then you have extreme examples which are already shifted like Spain (for historical reasons around aligning with Germany) and I don't find that alignment useful economically, in city life practice and more.
If had to make an executive choice with no further analysis at this moment I'd put them all in their respective original times and move Spain and any outlier to their proper timezone (a vertical map alignment of sorts)
The biggest unreasonability is switching at all. I admit other points of view, but switching back and forth is a compromise that seems far worse than just sticking with one. Either one.
We seem to be in the worst situation now where not only does the EU change their time twice a year, they change it on a different schedule than US/Canada.
For a few weeks during the year, half of your meetings start at a different time. Everyone is confused.
Coordinating that change for the RELEVANT parties, yes. IMHO that's a tiny part of a society.
Instead of everyone EVERYONE having to adjust clocks and their natural schedules. I think (and some studies agree with me) the stress and negative effects of that switching twice a year is much more on aggregate.
I don't personally see any benefit from daylight savings. But I also live at around 60+ degrees North: at peak summertime there is 19 hours of full daylight (barely gets dark the other hours), wintertime less about 5. Daylight saving does not really make a dent.
If there's a single section of the entire world where daylight savings makes the most, it's above and below the 45th parallel. This means the earliest sunrise is 9am in the winter what a horrible idea just to give people a little bit more sunlight when they'd still be out at work anyways.
Compromise solution: In the spring, just lose the hour during the workday at 3pm instead of in the middle of the night. Designate that missing hour a holiday so employees still have to get paid for it. All the complaints about switching back and forth would go away.
compromise between observing the daylight saving time switch and not observing it. There are benefits to switching twice a year (sunlight in the morning during the winter when you're supposed to be getting up for work, or when kids are getting on the school bus) (sunlight later into the evening during the summer so you can go play soccer after work if you want to) and you lose things if you decide to stick with just one
Eh, they're still keeping the impending switch to PDT, just ditching the future switch back to PST (and all future changes). That should give around 7-8 months for a new timezone file update to percolate.
How exactly do I fix the backend after this? Will a newer version of php or nodeJS have the correct handling of these timezone changes? I’ve been wondering about this for a while but can’t find an answer when googling.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. When I read the headline, my first thought was "how are they going to update the tz database on all Linuxes in the world in time?" I expect some confusion on November 1.
Lame. I'm convinced that people think DST actually creates more daylight. If people want more daylight, leave work earlier. Work less. Most of your jobs don't matter anyway. For people who have jobs that do matter, like teachers, nurses etc. the choice between 0 or +1 hardly makes a difference. Should have just gone with 0.
maybe this prods either the congress to allow permanent daylight savings or the western states to just move to standard time. but no, they will drag their feet.
what we need is some kind of critical mass which finally makes them act. Maybe a few more canadian provinces although it appears ontario is harder since they made a pact with Quebec and New York. But we need some more, maybe one major US state to break free and go to standard time.
tangentially related, Dr. Andrew Huberman shared a video in which he asserts that exposing one's eyes to sunlight very soon after waking is "good for your brain" (essentially): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2aWYjSA1Jc
Multiple peer-reviewed studies and analyses indicate an increase in traffic accidents—particularly fatal ones—following the spring transition to DST. This is often attributed to acute sleep deprivation (losing one hour of sleep), circadian rhythm disruption, and altered light conditions during peak commuting hours, which can impair alertness, reaction times, and visibility. Key findings include:
A large-scale U.S. study analyzing over 732,000 fatal motor vehicle accidents from 1996 to 2017 (published in Current Biology, 2020) reported a consistent 6% increase in fatal crash risk during the workweek immediately following the spring DST transition, equating to approximately 28 additional deaths annually in the U.S. The effect was more pronounced in western regions of time zones and persisted into afternoon hours despite longer evening daylight.
Other research has documented short-term spikes, such as increases of 16% on the first day and 12% on the second day after the spring change in some analyses, or broader elevations in fatal crashes linked to the "DST effect."
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm short-term elevations in collision risk post-spring transition in many (though not all) contexts, with some evidence of higher fatal accident rates in the U.S. specifically.
The fall transition back to Standard Time shows more mixed or opposite patterns: some studies report small increases in certain crash types (e.g., due to darker evening commutes increasing pedestrian or deer-vehicle collisions), while others note decreases in vehicle-occupant fatalities or no net increase overall.
A 2017 systematic review of road traffic collision risk found inconsistent short-term effects across studies (some showing increases, decreases, or no change), but long-term analyses often suggested a net safety benefit from DST periods due to evening light. Recent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) research (covering 2010–2019 U.S. data) indicated that spring DST increases fatal motor-vehicle occupant crashes (+12% in the following five weeks) but decreases fatal pedestrian/bicyclist crashes (−24%), resulting in a near-neutral net effect on total fatal crashes (slight increase in occupant deaths offset by fewer pedestrian/cyclist deaths).
In summary, your memory is correct in that empirical data—particularly from U.S.-based studies—support an increase in traffic accident frequency (especially fatal crashes) associated with Daylight Saving Time variations, most reliably in the immediate aftermath of the spring transition due to sleep loss and misalignment. However, effects are not uniform across all studies, regions, or crash types, and some research highlights trade-offs (e.g., benefits to pedestrians from evening light). Debates continue regarding permanent DST, permanent Standard Time, or abolition of changes altogether, with organizations like the American Academy of Sleep Medicine favoring permanent Standard Time to minimize disruptions.
Most people agree that changing the clock twice a year is silly, for obvious reasons. Still, there's a small minority that thinks that the existing system is good, for obvious reasons. Among those who want to abolish time zone change, there's roughly 50/50 split between those who prefer permanent summer time for obvious reasons, and those who prefer permanent winter time for obvious reasons. There are a few more exotic ideas floating around - many of which are obviously better than any of mainstream ones, but they unfortunately have a low chance of being adopted.
The end result is probably going to be more and more fracture on local level, as smal units of administration adopt their favorite solutions. This is obviously bad for doing business between units of administration, and obviously good for circadian rhythms of the people living within given unit. One thing obviously has more importance than the other.
As someone else pointed everyone is already on DST for approximately 65% of the year. This just removes the remaining 35%. Picking standard time would have been a much bigger change.
Ultimately, it's entirely arbitrary anyway. The only issue is that American states cannot pick DST without a federal law change.
> As someone else pointed everyone is already on DST for approximately 65% of the year. This just removes the remaining 35%. Picking standard time would have been a much bigger change.
This 65% started during the Dubya presidency (source: I was there updating tzdata on systems), and previous to that it was a 50/50 split.
> But the reasoning for that was a preference for DST.
There was no reasoning for the Dubya alteration: the change was not debated anywhere, and (AIUI) no one was ever able to figure out how it actually got slipped into the legislation.
The DST extension was included in Section 110 of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, debated as part of the bill, and justified on energy-savings grounds. Congress even required the Department of Energy to study its impact afterwards!
Especially living that far north, they're going to find out next winter why we do the whole DST thing. It seems to be something like the Measles vaccine where you just have to have a big outbreak every once in a while so that the cultural memory is refreshed.
Reminder that a few hundred years ago when clocks were oddities we didn't have to deal with any of this madness because everybody used True Solar Time as a sundial would read it. What time do kids go to school? After the sun rises. Simple. Now that we have clocks it suddenly becomes difficult to schedule simple things like sending kids to school in sunlight.
While true, I'm not sure what your point is? Centuries ago, everyone got up at sunrise to tend to the farm because the farm needed tending at sunrise. These days, organizations like schools and grocery stores need to coordinate with hundreds to thousands of people daily, and "angle of sun in the sky" is nowhere near precise enough. Let alone phone calls and instant messages that travel across many timezones.
I'm merely saying that the mass adoption of clock time for planning daily routines was an industrialist conspiracy to get people working when by natural right they should be sleeping.
We could easily have software presenting time to us as true solar time. We're not limited to gears and levers anymore, our "clocks" now have GPS and can trivially calculate solar time with that. Doing this one off is easy. The problem is society at large still trying to make plans like when to start work shifts or school hours based on a system of time that flies wildly out of synch with Earth's natural rhythms throughout the year.
I think point is that now we have technology that is super adaptive to local longitude while changing timezone in all of worlds software is super difficult.
This question IMO reveals how the abstraction of numbers can imprison our minds.
It literally makes no sense to say, "I prefer to have an extra hour in the evening" (the morning and evening will always have equal numbers of hours). Or "I hate it when it's dark at 5pm" (translation: "I hate when it's dark at 5 arbitrary periods after an arbitrary moment that may be hours either side of solar noon").
My solution: pick the time peg closest to the "correct" one (i.e. standard time) and stick to it. People who want year-round "summer" evenings can continue to have them by the simple expedient of doing what DST forces them (and everyone else) to do already: get up earlier.
Sure. But this argument is surely less powerful than it was back in the era of church bells and big clocks on factory walls and so on. We now have electronics that add a whole new layer of abstraction to our schedules, to the point that you can now miss a DST change if you're not paying attention. For many people (I'm one) this change is now just a useless irritation.
> This question IMO reveals how the abstraction of numbers can imprison our minds.
Is it the abstraction of number that imprison our mind or just the reality of having a job and other social constraint based on all of us agreeing on a time?
When most people can’t leave their job before 5pm, wether it’s dark at 5 or 6 makes a huge difference.
The social construct is moving later though. I guess this is because people's desire to sleep longer is making them move the social constraint of being at work later, while they stay up "partying" regardless of the social constraint.
It makes sense when schedules are fixed and time is the only thing we can change. I wouldn't mind switching to standard time if I can change my work schedule to have more light after work. I work from home, I don't care about not having light in the morning
I respect there are economic arguments for permanent DST. But I question the road safety stat I hear with announcements like this. Kids walking, biking, and being driven to school in mornings in darkness ... that's also what permanent DST gives us.
Oh well, I am in the minority it seems. So R.I.P. "high noon" ... I'll never see you again here. And, yes, I understand that depending on where one is within a time zone, a true "high noon" is only in theory. But it's a nice ideal. :-)
reply