Hacker News Reader

Comment by kmm | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious to know, what is the point of linking to solar time? What advantage is there to the Sun reaching its highest point at 12 'o clock?

Most people are awake for about 6 hours before noon, and about 10 hours after. Most social events also happen after the work day. So our day is already shifted from what would logically follow from our clock. Being on +2 already feels like a compromise between the two.

I'd love it if getting up at 4am and going to bed at 8pm was the norm, and solar noon was the exact midpoint of the day, but as I am not a recluse I cannot start that trend, and therefore shifting the timezones seems more reasonable.

View on HN

As I presume you know, Solar noon represents the highest point of the Sun in the day. It seems fitting that the 'work hours' should be 4 hrs either side of that (8am-4pm).

Being a 'sunlover' I'm regularly up before dawn so that I can catch the first rays of Sun as it crosses the horizon. To me it's the most beautiful part of the day. Unfortunately, we have semi-arbitrarily defined 'zones' that fluctuate 1hr because of the propagandist notion that extra daylight at the end of the day means more people will be outside enjoying the Sun. This DST causes my work day to suddenly shift so that I'm forced to go to work earlier than normal, & I miss a lot of sunrises as a result.

I like this idea of solar noon for times... Especially for overseas communications too... because we'd just need to know the longitude of the person to know their exact time. (Currently, I'm forced to use timeanddate.com to work out relative overseas times).

Where I am, the state to the North of me doesn't follow DST (Qld), whereas mine does (nsw) and it creates havoc around the beginning/end of DST.

So, at least for me, there are three reasons to use solar noon based time rather than the current system. I'm sure I could come up with more.

That said, I go to bed early too, and acknowledge that isn't the way most people live.

DST may be bad, but discrete (as opposed to continuous) time zones are not. Having decent-sized economic and social zones where clocks don't change at all is extremely useful, and is in fact the main reason time zones were invented.

I sure don't want to have to think about a few minutes of time difference between Oakland and Sacramento, after all.

Most working professionals I know are working 9 to 5, not 8 to 4.

This is country dependent. Across the Nordics for example 8 to 4 is very common.

That's only 7 hours. I don't know anyone who only works 9-5. Many either work 8-5 or 9-6.

(Lunches aren't paid, that's a WA State law.)

Except we have more time in the evenings after work than we do in the mornings before work. To me work should be 10-6.

Do you mean 9-6 or 10-7?

I've done a 10-7 shift, it's miserable. Waste half your morning, and half your evening. You have to get ready for work when stores and banks are just opening, and you get home just as those shops are closing.

I prefer 7-4 because it leaves a bit of late afternoon and the whole evening.

It’s possible to work 9-5 and still eat lunch.

Only if the business pays them for the lunch break. (I was wrong about it being mandatory unpaid.)

https://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/HoursBreaks/Bre...

Why would I use prime daytime on work indoors? Logically, prime daytime should be used for leisure and other time for work. I propose Delayed-Onset-Mornings and say we should work from noon to 2000.

One advantage of solar noon is use of sundials.

can’t tell if you’re being funny or serious. making it all the more funny. either way, brilliant!

I, for one, am getting sick of rotating my sundial twice a year.

Yes, let's base our society on an archaic device that can't even accurately tell the time.

I don't know a single person that is awake at 6am. Where does this "most people" claim come from?

I do.

Looks in the mirror.

You don't know anyone who works a night shift?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com