That article doesn't say why it was a bad idea.
Are we really rejecting this because it'll be dark at 7:35am?
Sorry, but that's not even close to a compelling reason not to do this.
Are we really rejecting this because it'll be dark at 7:35am?
Sorry, but that's not even close to a compelling reason not to do this.
Of course the real problem is there's just not enough light in the winter. Not much we can do about that. :-)
In Boston (Northernmost major metro on East Coast) the new latest sunrise would be at 8:13am, with a substantial period of twilight before then. Night will officially end at 6:32am, then astronomical twilight ends at 7:06, then officially sunrise at 8:13am. Point is you’re waking up during the dawn even if you’re waking up at 6:30 to get the kids to school.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals.
HN Guidelines, https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you disagree, I suggest explaining why. My arguments are reasonable.
I can't speak to their efficacy personally, can you? Do you know for a fact that they are error prone? All makes and models? Or did you shallowly dismiss the other person's suggestion?
Sorry, but that's not even close to a compelling reason to do this.
See how easy it is? I can dismiss others' preferences just as easy. Waking up when it's dark out isn't good for people. We should rise with the sun, more or less, and "time" should change to accommodate that.
Why? What are you using the first couple hours of your day for except to get ready for work? Complete waste to do that in the daylight.
> Secondly, it's more dangerous for kids walking to school.
We should be pushing back school starting times anyway. If they're old enough to walk to school, then they don't need their parents to wait for them to leave before going to work, so that typical argument goes out the window.
> And lastly we use more energy since a larger part of our day is lived in the darkness for most people.
A weak argument IMO. Studies are not conclusive on the actual savings, and most of the ones that are out there say they save minimal energy. Besides, I think the mental health benefits of having more useful hours in the evening are worth the extra 0.5-1% energy usage.
At least this way you get some Sunlight before you're at work and some when you're done.
Much better to have the hour of sun after work to do things outside.
Here's 1 day from last week, before DST:
5:00 AM: wake up
5:15 - 6:30: lift
6:30: breakfast, coffee, and paper on the porch, watch the sun rise.
7:15: go shower, dress, pack lunch, get ready for work
7:30: leave for work
7:50: arrive at work
2 things I enjoy, a few hours of "free time", before work. And by the way, showing up at work around 8 is more common than arriving at 9 for most corporate jobs. The tech bubble is real on this site. Guess why? Because we like having some light left in the evening/ending our day earlier, among other reasons.
> We should be pushing back school starting times anyway.
No, learning to get up early forces kids to learn to go to bed on time, that's a valuable skill that teaches discipline. If a kid has to suffer through getting up on 5 hours sleep they probably won't make that mistake again.
> A weak argument
Living a larger part of the day in darkness isn't good for most people's happiness, energy use aside.
> If a kid has to suffer through getting up on 5 hours sleep they probably won't make that mistake again.
... I don't think you've met kids before. The vast majority absolutely won't learn.
> Living a larger part of the day in darkness isn't good for most people's happiness, energy use aside.
Standard time moves sunlight to the morning, when people are sleeping. Permanent DST should give people the same or more sunlight during their waking hours. You'd have the same amount, waking up at 5am and assuming you don't sleep until at least 8:30pm.
We should try to move sunrise closer to when people wake up. This does the opposite for most people, not just me.
Also, we should teach more people to get up early and go lift/exercise. We have too many fatties in this country. Making it a national habit would be a great thing.
From my experience, having experienced being a kid does not prepare you very much for the task of raising one.
And congrats at being disciplined. The vast vast vast majority of Americans aren't. And changing the habits of hundreds of millions of people is a pipe dream and really irrelevant to this conversation.
With permanent DST people will have more opportunities to do that in the daylight after work, as the day will be longer.
You are arguing against many well-documented studies about what school hours work best for kids to learn. "on time" is entirely based on what time you need to get up. The whole point of moving school later is for "on time" to be compatible with the hours that kids are more functional. This is not a matter of discipline; deciding you're going to be up and functional earlier does not change your body or the sun's position in the sky to be compatible with that. (If you want to argue otherwise, argue in published studies refuting the ones that exist, not in replies to this comment.)
Move school hours to start several hours later than they currently do, and then by all means encourage the discipline of getting up in time for school.