Such a terrible idea compared to permanent standard time.
There is plenty of light during the summer, so there's no need to optimize for that. The winter is when daylight is scarce, so that's what should be optimized for.
There is plenty of light during the summer, so there's no need to optimize for that. The winter is when daylight is scarce, so that's what should be optimized for.
None, I suppose, and so with less light available to them, the american farmer will once again lose ground to competitors in other, more sane nations.
People don't like going to bed on time because they don't like discipline.
So instead of learning some, like their parents should have taught them, they complain and demand the schedule move because it's "too hard".
When I started working I had to be there at 7 AM every day no matter what so I got disciplined and grew up.
Today's new hires want to come in late all the time and complain that they can't get enough sleep when they should be going to bed earlier instead of going out drinking on a weekday or staying up playing fort nite or whatever.
Is it enjoyable for most people to get up and be at work at 7? No. Why tolerate it just because parents generation tolerated it? Old people also tolerated polio. People aren’t more productive at one time versus another, especially if they’re being forced against their will to lose sleep for no good reason.
There is nothing wrong with starting work later- especially if you’re still getting all your work done during the day anyways. Young people who roll into work at a healthy time probably outperform all the curmudgeony old people who are miserable anyways. I start work at 10am and get more done than coworkers who start at 7. It’s just simply false to assume earlier is better. I perform way better now than when I arrived early.
We should be encouraging people to care less about their work and more about having fun. Work is not the purpose for your life. There is nothing wrong with drinking with friends on a weekday or playing Fortnite in the evening.
So, we should make sunrise closer to that, not further away. My above point stands: young people want to move things later because they like staying out, staying up, etc. They learn to curb this as they get older, but this generation is trying to move time instead of growing up. Peter pan can't stay out all night playing when he has a real job in the morning.
2. It’s a public forum. Lots of people hold beliefs that rising early is somehow “better” or less lazy or something. That belief is more strongly held amongst old people when the 20th century culture pushed it on people. It’s as much for you as for others.
3. Do people get up before 7 because they want to or have to. My point still stands that we shouldn’t force a schedule on people (my argument falls a bit for service workers I admit where time open is actually impactful on revenue).
3. No young people are not trying to move this because they don’t want to learn. There is a natural distribution in times when people naturally rise. I happen to naturally rise around 9, so i like to start work at 10, and thats at the far end, so i've become a strong advocate for this. It’s not natural to put everyone on the same schedule when there is no valid reason. This generation is the first one to truly call BS on applying farmers' schedules to all of society. Why must software engineers start work at 7 and not 9? There is no good reason. It does not improve productivity, it is not required for business.
4. Why is your way the right way? What about if 10am was the natural start of work time? All those 7am’ers are just trying to end work at 3 so they don’t have to work till EOD. SMH they get so sleepy they can’t do the rest of their life past 5pm. They need to learn to drink a coffee and keep working instead of being lazy and going to bed before society is done with the day.
5. This bill is sponsored by Rubio, who i don't think is a fan fav among the young, so idt it should be seen as "this generation" passing the bill. Besides, similar bills have been proposed for generations.
Sample size of one sure, but I had no problem developing discipline when I needed it, and was happy to discard it and stay up later when I didn’t. I don’t know what you’re so worked up about here.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals.
HN Guidelines, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Who said I'm a Boomer, anyway? I don't see the problem with pointing out that a reasonable wake up time helps push people to get over their perpetual adolescence.
I bet they’ll tell everyone else they’re lazy like my 95yo grandfather did when he woke up at 4am.
/s
Can’t we all just accept that everyone’s body is different and has different preferences. There is a measured Gaussian distribution in rise times for humans like everything else.
The point is, it's better to rise with the sun and still have time to get ready before work. Americans get up before 7 AM: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11639214/how-people-around-the...
We should line up sunrise closer to the center of that distribution. This law does the opposite.
Personally, I'm agnostic. I prefer to be an early riser most days and it does suit me better on the whole. But it's also great in the summer to have more time in the evening to socialize with my friends who work a 9-5 and are only available on weekdays after work.
Do you have any friends that you would like to socialize with in the summer on weekdays after work?
But at least now it's only slightly early instead of when/before I would normally get up.
There's the objective set of reasons to do something, and then there's the list your emotional brain actually pays attention to, and this is #1 on that list. Most of our weird behaviors and a lot of our difficult conversations are caused by trying to stuff an emotional decision into a business suit.
It's not as easy to replicate the sunshine when you want to do an outdoor activity after work...
No, it absolutely is not. Light you get from some Walmart alarm clock is the wrong temperature, the wrong CRI, and about 1/1000th of the right intensity.
You can replicate it for the low-to-mid 5 digits: https://www.coelux.com/
You're buying into their marketing pretty hard...
Lol, no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun
I know that's an extreme, but you get the idea.
TheCoelacanth was arguing about summer vs. winter so that's the thread I was following in my mind.
>and there isn't a "correct" answer there
For me, personally, I like the concept that noon is when the sun is at it highest point or closest, I can adjust everything else around that.
Plus, "solar noon" itself shifts by ~20 mins throughout the year due to the Earth's orbit.
With standard time you will still have the rough center of the time zone match with solar time with about +/- 30 minutes give or take on the sides. With DST it may well happen that no part of the timezone actually matches solar time since everything is essentially shifted 1 hour to the East.
Sure, it's easy to say "just leave work an hour earlier" and some people have that flexibility. But far from most, I'd wager.
I'd love to live in a world where bankers and dentists and optometrists all kept different hours, so the bankers could get glasses, and the dentists take out loans, without having to drop everything to do it. With smart phones this is somewhat more tenable. I don't need to memorize when the dentist is open, so there is less immediate value in reducing the world to a small set of common numbers.
That’s where the problem is.
Then you must not like time zones, as that is true only in one particular sliver of a time zone. You want true local time, like before the railroads time.
The real Sun and the imaginary “mean Sun,” from which mean solar time is measured, may be as much as 16 minutes apart because during the course of the year the apparent motion of the real Sun against the background of the stars (the ecliptic) alternately slows down and speeds up.
https://www.britannica.com/science/solar-time
The east–west component [of the analemma] results from the nonuniform rate of change of the Sun's right ascension, governed by combined effects of Earth's axial tilt and orbital eccentricity.
Much better is to ask public health experts. Which will look at sleeping patters, at risk groups, etc. I’m particularly worried about teenagers which will be forced to wake up before sunrise and are unlikely to go to sleep earlier under social pressure (including from their own family).
The folks at various chronobiology and sleep study societies say otherwise:
> The choice of DST is political and therefore can be changed. If we want to improve human health, we should not fight against our body clock, and therefore, we should abandon DST and return to Standard Time (which is when the sun clock time most closely matches the social clock time) throughout the year. This solution would fix both the acute and the chronic problems of DST. We therefore strongly support removing DST changes or removing permanent DST and having governing organizations choose permanent Standard Time for the health and safety of their citizens.
* https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/07487304198541...
Lots of footnotes here in this paper if you want to get into the details:
* https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.0094...
The position papers of various societies:
* https://srbr.org/advocacy/daylight-saving-time-presskit/
* https://old.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dq2nv3/
* http://www.chronobiology.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/JBR-D...
* https://www.chronobiology.com/impact-daylight-saving-time-ci...
* https://esrs.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/To_the_EU_Commiss...
There seems to be a consensus on what's "best", and it doesn't appear to by Year-round DST.
I'd be curious to know what hearings, if any, were held on this topic, and with whom.
Which this does, because now DST is now the standard time.
For a timekeeping library (which likely uses a system-level source of data / the IANA tz database) this shouldn't have any effect.
It shouldn't be a big deal. Inevitably though, it always seems to bring the bugs out of the woodwork.
Also, where I live there's a max of 16 hours of sunlight, and a min of 8 and a half. In the summer, it doesn't matter what the clock says, it's going to be bright when you wake up and bright when you go to sleep; so much sun. In the winter, it's most likely dark when you get up and dark when you go to bed, not enough sun that fiddling with the clocks is going to be really helpful anyway. Maybe there's a little more twilight in the morning the week after Halloween, and then it's back to morning commute in the dark. And it's pretty chilly, so while sure, I don't want to bike in the dark, I also don't want to bike in the cold, either, even if there is sun.
It's also stupid from an astronomical point of view.
It's made me realize that my being a night owl is less about the actual time and more about how I'm spending it in relation to the rest of society. There's just something about being awake when others aren't that's preferable.
Also, some states would have a real problem with permanent standard time. Maine, in particular really belongs in the Atlantic time zone, as standard time puts sunset way too early most of the year. Having the sun down by 4:00 sucks.
Boston, MA and Marquette, MI are in the same time zone. Boston's sunset today is 6:51 PM. Marquette's sunset today is 7:55 PM. It's no surprise that residents of each of those cities would have a different view as to "what should we do about DST?"
Not to mention the extra energy use.
Correct, which is why the correct solution is to not have school start so bloody early.
For everyone not between the ages of 6 and 18, an extra hour of daylight in the evening is far more useful.
It also saves energy.
I agree. The solution to that is not to have kids go to school stupid early. Studies show that kids prefer to learn later in the day.
Besides, after school activities continue into the dark in the winter. Better to let the kids be able to be outside/playing/doing band/whatever in the evening instead of stuck inside because it's dark with their free time.
Fundamentally, for this change to satisfy its mandate, the kids have to to to school in the dark during the winter.
Fwiw, I think it's a fine thing. I always found it very romantic to go to school when it is still dark when I was young.
Your proposal would not satisfy the primary goal of the proponents of this policy. It would also still require one or more coordinated, discrete shifts in the schedules of schools and workplaces, which would likely be more complicated for computers and other systems than the status quo.
The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business. We are going to stick to a standard time after this policy -- it's going to be daylight savings time all the time, although we will probably stop calling it that after we all get used to the policy. Individuals or groups will be equally free to adopt their own schedules both before and after this policy change -- this policy is not a change on that front.
You misunderstood my meaning. I understand that everyone is concerned and affected by time. What I meant is it's not in their purview to push such things on the public.
Once again, the rest of the world works perfectly fine without the added complexity, so it should be proven with strong evidence rather than vague arguments that the added complexity is worth it. The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
It is, in fact, in the purview of the public to change the status quo as it pertains to time. We did it in when daylight savings was established, and we are going to do it again now that we are moving to permanent DST. The status quo affects people who don't like it, and they have every right to try to see it changed. There is no reasonable theory of politics that privileges the status quo to the point you seem to be contemplating.
> The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
Maybe we are talking past each other. You say the rest of the world does fine without DST. That's not actually true, most countries do have daylight savings. But you're certainly right that many countries do fine without it. For example it is not observed in South Korea. And after this law passes, so will the United States (i.e. the effect of this law is to abolish daylight savings time, by moving the clock permanently to the DST configuration).
It’s a silly idea that once thought out becomes clear.
Now, I favor never changing the time of each place and keeping on daylight time, but that's just me.
Supervision and legalities related to it can be boarderline oppressive in some places.
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-finds-th...
And it's not my fault an article decided that street lights in the 70s were too dim for school children in new york.
Because even on the shortest day twilight happens before 7am.
And IMHO, beyond elementary school (and perhaps earlier) there's no reason most kids can't be unsupervised briefly before letting themselves out to get to the bus, or after being dropped off by the bus.
See the whole thing about free range kids, helicopter parents, and so forth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/child-sleep-zzzs/202...
It says as late as 11pm. Another one says some of the later time can be explained by other things like light exposure. This seems to indicate that a 10pm bed time could be attainabke with a wake up time of 6 or 6:30 providing adequate sleep. Some of the studies show that even on weekends without the waking constraint teens are getting 7-8 hours or less. It's also indicative of weak influence when we see the remote learning being called a disaster yet these articles are touting the benefits of the extra sleep associated with them - where is the mitigating impact then?
Also from the articles, “As I often phrase it, multilevel interventions are needed,”. Why not start with the less intrusive interventions? Not all kids require a later start time, and could even be hurt by it. A later start time would have hurt me, for example. We need to make sure we aren't hurting some people in an effort to help others.
Perhaps the strongest evidence is that adults are not affected by the hormone related shift and yet they too do not get the recommended sleep. This points to the idea that environment and habit could be factors.
So far I see no absolute evidence of societal net benefit, largely because the studies ignore n-order impacts and fail to fully explore alternative explanations and remedies.
Don't forget, a lot of this is psychology and is just towing the line. They don't even know why bi-phasic sleep disappeared. I would love to see the data for adolescent sleep times and duration for the past 150 years, but it appears the studies completely ignore this. For knowing so little, they certainly are pushing hard for a specific change (a change that some of the studies don't believe will fix the issues, such as achievement gap, hormone altering light exposures, etc).
I wonder what the actual percentages are. It's probably a thing where each group can't believe that there's a significant number of people in the other.
"that hour or two of morning light is really just wasted."
Only for people who wake up late. There could also be benefits to aligning one's circadian rhythm to morning light.
The fundamental trade-off is: sunlight when you wake up and you're going to school/work, or sunlight when you're coming back from school/work? Unless you reduce the school/work day, this is unavoidable.
Changing the clock is, realistically, the only way to coordinate all the necessary actors.
Otherwise, if schools decided to start at 9AM, they would put a huge burden on parents starting work at 9AM, who no longer have time to drop their kids off and still make it to their workplace.
While also anecdotal, the responses here seem to favor evenings as opposed to mornings.
Preferably both, but the study which shows you are in the majority would be a great start.
https://www.thrillist.com/news/nation/overflow-data-finds-th...
Most people arrive at work between 7:45AM and 8:00AM. Which means they are up at 6-6:30 probably. Having some Sun during this time is nice for most people.
Is there a study that actually proves this? That people prefer daylight in the mornings when they're an early riser? I don't think they're as correlated as you and the other person are making it seem to be.
There's your study. Having sunlight when people wake up is good. And if people pass stupid laws that make my life harder for it, I will bitch about it and antagonize them until they change them. Just like pretty much everybody else on this comment page.
Once again, your opinion is just that, your opinion. It doesn't mean everyone else shares it.
This would also address your morning light concerns.
Will get family services called on you. I don't think this affects more than a handful of people in 2022.
https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-lakewood-ohio-walking-...
Since tone can often travel poorly across the wire—that is sarcasm, right?
> The benefit of forcing the discipline of getting up early on children is greater than any health impact or inconvenience.
that a particular arbitrary method of instilling a particular arbitrary form of discipline is more important than any health impact or any inconvenience is horrifying to me, and I hope it doesn't find many adherents.
Edit: reply is dead so I can't respond, but 'beeboop, do you really have a problem with scouts? It's helped form a lot of good young men in America.
Getting up early: maybe for some people.
But forcing society to get up at a time that suits almost nobody purely because it is hard: no.
You might want to read more about the impact for lack of sleep on people's health.
They're not. This ignores diverging chronotypes. I suggest you read up on the science around sleep before commenting on whether "they're fine".
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/chronotypes-ev...
https://www.sleepfoundation.org/how-sleep-works/chronotypes
https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Sleep-Unlocking-Dreams/dp/1501...
I can't say for certain where my night-owlish self comes from, but it predates taking stimulants and working at a game dev company - so maybe it's a side effect of light sensitivity or maybe it's a neurological thing... or maybe it's just a natural clock thing.
It’s self-discipline theatre.
We used to need early rising when we milked cows and hunted at dawn.
But now we primarily need sharp minds and being awake at dawn has no special benefit.
I say this as an early riser.
Here’s why: The Hadza are hunter-gatherers whose lifestyle is very similar to that of early humans.
The observations were found in people with lifestyles that represent that of early humans. What part of nurture would affect those people? They have no concept of a clock...
In a "daylight savings only" world solar noon will instead center around 13:00 and solar midnight around 01:00. To me that's just absurd.
If "people want more daylight hours after work" and it's worth making sweeping disruptive changes to make it happen...
Then just make the workday from 8 to 4 instead of 9 to 5.
No no, instead of making a sane clock and using whatever times we want on it, it obviously makes more sense to make a messed up clock.
What other measuring implements and scales should we move around so the numbers please us better?
Everything is expensive, let's change the way any monetary value is written to be -1 based. Henceforth all prices shall be written on a scale that starts at -1 instead of 0. If a thing cost $4 yesterday, it now costs the same 4 dollars, but the price is written as $3. This will give e eryone more money! I call it permanent wallet saving prices!
My seasonal affect disorder kicks in hard when we leave DST every winter. This is the first bit of great news I've heard all year.
I grew up in a permanent DST and I don’t have fond memories of it. Over there public health officials are actually advocating to moving back to standard time because teenagers in particular are sleep deprived. Going to bed earlier is not a realistic option as proven by experience.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/3/6/21167826/day...
Unless you're a senior citizen who's retired and doesn't like late nights, I don't get why for most people, darkness wouldn't be preferred for those "nothing" activities, so an extra hour of light can then be enjoyed after they get home from work/school/whatever. Otherwise, yeah, you're enjoying the light in the morning... from the inside of a car... on your way to a day of obligations where you're stuck inside usually doing things you have to do rather than things you want to do.
I think most people would rather have that extra hour of light for after they get home from work/school/whatever, so they can actually enjoy the outdoors a bit when they get home.
I always hated the feeling from late fall until early spring of being excited to be done school/work... only to get home and it be dark so basically the only thing I can do is walk inside and stay in there until the next day.
People thank that they do, but their brain disagrees. There are numerous other posts on this thread indicating that public health experts agree with peoples brains in that the extra hour in the after noon is not worth the early rise.
> I always hated the feeling from late fall until early spring of being excited to be done school/work... only to get home and it be dark so basically the only thing I can do is walk inside and stay in there until the next day.
So here we have a problem, it can be solved by changing the clock to give you an extra evening hour at the cost of an early rise which leads the sleep deprivation for a large group of people. However it can also be solved in a number of different ways. Labour laws can be passed which mandates shorter working hours and/or winter vacation. Your local government can invest in more public spaces with good lighting and commercial activities close to peoples work places so that you can e.g. jump to a bar with your classmates/colleagues for the last hour of sun during mid-winter. Etc. Moving the clock seems like the radical option here, especially given the detrimental public health effects.
This really depends on location within the timezone. And some places, e.g. Michigan, are simply in the wrong time zone.
DST was good enough to implement while in an agrarian society, so why not the universal clock in a global connected society? Just imagine the precision.
</half-joking>
Also destroys the idea of a 9-to-5 job. Make it start at :30 if that's better for the longitude.
Planes, trains, and automobiles changed all of that. That and modern communication. Today, it matters. Now if I need to talk to someone in Japan, I have to coordinate things so that we're both awake. It matters if it's nighttime to them. Which is why we do have a universal clock. It's just expressed differently based on your distance from the prime meridian.
But, it's not the expression that matters.
Daylight Savings Time (DST) is a very stupid way to deal with a lot of stupid people. Everyone here arguing about making people adjust schedules, etc. That's exactly what DST is. But instead of your local grocery saying "Yeah, we're opening at 5am for these months" we just tell the entire country to change their clocks. Which is the same net effect. It's a fiction we engage in to pretend we're not inconveniencing ourselves. And in some ways, it probably is easier this way. It's controlled, determined, and doesn't require a ton of signage to be changed. We already have to set clocks, so it all works out.
I think a lot of the arguments about the "extra hour of sunlight" are kind of stupid. Because, it's not an hour. It's not going to be pitch black regardless. And most of what people do after work involves walking from the inside of one building to the inside of another. But then again, I wake up between 5 and 6 and go to bed between 10 and midnight.
I'd prefer for it to be on Standard time year round because if you are X zones from the prime meridian, you should be +/-X based on that. But, once again, time zones are really stupid because they don't conform to distance from the prime meridian. Morocco is +1 UTC despite being completely to the west of prime meridian. Most of Greenland is -3 despite spanning 5 zones, with one small section actually observing UTC despite being in the zone that should be -1 and the section that is -1 actually should be observing -2.
And look at the US on this map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/World_Ti...)
Central Time is the most dominant zone going from the westernmost point of Texas to most of the Florida panhandle. Most of Texas should be -7, not -6. And so on and so forth. I bet if you "fixed" this kind of bullshit, more people would be in favor of Standard time year round. Or at least less opposed to it.
DST is just what’s needed.
It's also nice for me personally since my circadian rhythm seems to be on 'Summer' time, all the time.
CA, OR, WA and BC were all on the same page wrt to doing this so this just removes one of the blocks from making it happen.
Though it's possible they were the ones paying lobbyists to get it through Congress in the first place. Sometimes paying someone else to do your dirties is the most efficient way.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/noon
---------------------
noon (n.) mid-12c., non "midday," in exact use, "12 o'clock p.m.," also "midday meal," from Old English non "3 o'clock p.m., the ninth hour from sunrise," also "the canonical hour of nones," from Latin nona hora "ninth hour" of daylight, by Roman and ecclesiastical reckoning about 3 p.m., from nona, fem. singular of nonus "ninth," contracted from *novenos, from novem "nine" (see nine).
The sense shift from "3 p.m." to "12 p.m." began during 12c., and various reasons are given for it, such as unreliability of medieval time-keeping devices and the seasonal elasticity of the hours of daylight in northern regions. In monasteries and on holy days, fasting ended at nones, which perhaps offered another incentive to nudge it up the clock. Or perhaps the sense shift was based on an advance in the customary time of the (secular) midday meal. Whatever the cause, the meaning change from "ninth hour" to "sixth hour" seems to have been complete by 14c. (the same evolution is in Dutch noen).
From 17c. to 19c., noon sometimes also meant "midnight" (the noon of the night).
---------------------
Of course the meaning of the word centuries ago doesn't really matter much for what people think about the word today, but it's interesting none the less.
Sunrise at its latest would still be reasonable, around 8:00am, with plenty of predawn lights for kids and early risers.
Personally I'm happy they just pick one and stick with it.
There is another much smaller cluster of people who start work at 4-6am because they're in transit or service industry and they are before sunrise either way.
Yes but so-called Standard Time was only optimizing that for a small group - the intention was rural children walking to school could do so in daylight. And otherwise it pessimized the use of scarce sunlight by moving forward the time workers left to when it was dark.
Always Standard Time might be better than awful switch but permanent Daylight Savings would offer most people who work 9-5 more sunlight over the year, the actual optimal solution.
That is what this is doing. Make that scarce daylight available after work, when it is useful.
Really, the choice is a tradeoff between earlier sunrises or later sunsets.
There were always going to be winners and losers in this situation.