So you’d rather change everybody else’s schedule to meet your desires? Because that’s what DST is: the government telling its people to change their schedules by an hour.
I’m not arguing for changing clocks twice a year. I’m arguing that permanent DST is no better than permanent Standard Time when it comes to scheduling. The difference is that people are falsely convinced permanent DST will give them “more daylight” when it will not. Schedules have always shifted between seasons. We can’t do anything about the motion of planets, but we can decide to go to work an hour earlier to maximize how much continuous time we have after work to do yardwork or whatever.
Today, we have this arbitrary “9 to 5” work schedule. Give it 20 years of permanent DST, and we’ll start wishing we “had more daylight” because we have a “10 to 6” work schedule. They’re just numbers. Why not choose the simpler standard?
I already go to work in the dark most of the year. It is the time change that robs me of that that it takes what was a dark hour to a slightly less dark hour, all the while costing me that hour earlier. Perhaps you think I work 9-5. No, I work 7-4. I have no desire to go to work an hour earlier, because it’s not arbitrary. The rest of the world operates on a schedule by necessity. Further changing my start time puts me further out of sync with everyone else.
I never said DST gives more daylight. I said it puts the daylight where I want it.
Apologies. I was using “9 to 5” to mean “a standard work schedule that doesn’t actually exist for most people except as a cliche.”
I have no desire to go to work an hour earlier
But that’s exactly what permanent DST is! Just because the clock still says “7 xDT” instead of “7 xST” doesn’t make it the same time. The sun still rises and sets on it’s own time no matter what our clocks say. Circadian rhythms ultimately depend on sunrise, zenith, and sunset, not some number on a clock. Switching between ST and DST effectively forces the whole world to adopt a “winter” schedule and a “summer” schedule, but in an incredibly disruptive and politically-charged way.
I agree that changing clocks twice a year is a bad idea. My point is, if we’re going to pick one, it should be the one that is based on the motion of the planet. The whole world has to coordinate schedules anyways. So let’s use a standard that more closely matches our biology, not some “you’ll save daylight” marketing.
Or maybe we should all agree to live in the future and just use UTC…
But that’s exactly what permanent DST is! Just because the clock still says “7 xDT” instead of “7 xST” doesn’t make it the same time.
Yes it is, because everything else around me moves an hour. I have to move because time is standardized. When time goes to standard time, if I just kept the same schedule, everything else moves an hour later: sporting events I might want to watch, social gatherings I might want to go to, and so on. Thus, I wind up being up “later” and thus want to get up “later.” No man is an island. I can’t just stay on a DST schedule by myself.
And I don’t think standard matches our biology in some magical way. Noon is the middle of 5”the daylight, but for most people, the middle of there day is closer to 1pm.
…everything else around me moves an hour. I have to move because time is standardized.
This sounds an awful lot like you’re arguing for continuing to change our clocks twice a year. I’ll assume benefit of the doubt that this is just a misunderstanding.
I don’t think standard matches our biology in some magical way.
This sounds an awful lot like you’re arguing for continuing to change our clocks twice a year. I’ll assume benefit of the doubt that this is just a misunderstanding.
Sorry if I’m confusing, but I am in favor of not changing clocks. I am just responding to your statement that I should keep going on at the same solar time or whatever you want to call it. As long as clocks keep changing, I will have to adjust as most of the rest of the population adjusts.
It’s not magic. It’s science.
They don’t provide much evidence aside from a link to a hearing that will not load for me. But I don’t know what their assumptions are. I doubt most will have a schedule available or even choose a schedule that aligns to perfect circadian rhythms. I also want to know what their position is in the effect of much earlier sunrises in the summer, where some areas will see light at 4 am or earlier. When I have seen other groups justify standard time, the focus is almost universally the issue is morning light in winter, and ignores what will happen to sunrises in the summer. Yeah, the winter has little light. That’s just a fact of nature.
I still say most, given the choice, already choose or are forced to choose a schedule that somewhat is suboptimal for circadian rhythms.
Also, I think if that is the argument, that you have to look at the time zones themselves. Many are in the wrong time one based on solar time.
I don’t want to change my schedule. I don’t want to have to go to work an hour earlier just so I can get daylight in the evening.
So you’d rather change everybody else’s schedule to meet your desires? Because that’s what DST is: the government telling its people to change their schedules by an hour.
Who says I’m changing everyone else’s schedule? I the one that DOESN’T want the clocks to change.
I’m not arguing for changing clocks twice a year. I’m arguing that permanent DST is no better than permanent Standard Time when it comes to scheduling. The difference is that people are falsely convinced permanent DST will give them “more daylight” when it will not. Schedules have always shifted between seasons. We can’t do anything about the motion of planets, but we can decide to go to work an hour earlier to maximize how much continuous time we have after work to do yardwork or whatever.
Today, we have this arbitrary “9 to 5” work schedule. Give it 20 years of permanent DST, and we’ll start wishing we “had more daylight” because we have a “10 to 6” work schedule. They’re just numbers. Why not choose the simpler standard?
I already go to work in the dark most of the year. It is the time change that robs me of that that it takes what was a dark hour to a slightly less dark hour, all the while costing me that hour earlier. Perhaps you think I work 9-5. No, I work 7-4. I have no desire to go to work an hour earlier, because it’s not arbitrary. The rest of the world operates on a schedule by necessity. Further changing my start time puts me further out of sync with everyone else.
I never said DST gives more daylight. I said it puts the daylight where I want it.
Apologies. I was using “9 to 5” to mean “a standard work schedule that doesn’t actually exist for most people except as a cliche.”
But that’s exactly what permanent DST is! Just because the clock still says “7 xDT” instead of “7 xST” doesn’t make it the same time. The sun still rises and sets on it’s own time no matter what our clocks say. Circadian rhythms ultimately depend on sunrise, zenith, and sunset, not some number on a clock. Switching between ST and DST effectively forces the whole world to adopt a “winter” schedule and a “summer” schedule, but in an incredibly disruptive and politically-charged way.
I agree that changing clocks twice a year is a bad idea. My point is, if we’re going to pick one, it should be the one that is based on the motion of the planet. The whole world has to coordinate schedules anyways. So let’s use a standard that more closely matches our biology, not some “you’ll save daylight” marketing.
Or maybe we should all agree to live in the future and just use UTC…
Yes it is, because everything else around me moves an hour. I have to move because time is standardized. When time goes to standard time, if I just kept the same schedule, everything else moves an hour later: sporting events I might want to watch, social gatherings I might want to go to, and so on. Thus, I wind up being up “later” and thus want to get up “later.” No man is an island. I can’t just stay on a DST schedule by myself.
And I don’t think standard matches our biology in some magical way. Noon is the middle of 5”the daylight, but for most people, the middle of there day is closer to 1pm.
This sounds an awful lot like you’re arguing for continuing to change our clocks twice a year. I’ll assume benefit of the doubt that this is just a misunderstanding.
It’s not magic. It’s science.
Sorry if I’m confusing, but I am in favor of not changing clocks. I am just responding to your statement that I should keep going on at the same solar time or whatever you want to call it. As long as clocks keep changing, I will have to adjust as most of the rest of the population adjusts.
They don’t provide much evidence aside from a link to a hearing that will not load for me. But I don’t know what their assumptions are. I doubt most will have a schedule available or even choose a schedule that aligns to perfect circadian rhythms. I also want to know what their position is in the effect of much earlier sunrises in the summer, where some areas will see light at 4 am or earlier. When I have seen other groups justify standard time, the focus is almost universally the issue is morning light in winter, and ignores what will happen to sunrises in the summer. Yeah, the winter has little light. That’s just a fact of nature.
I still say most, given the choice, already choose or are forced to choose a schedule that somewhat is suboptimal for circadian rhythms.
Also, I think if that is the argument, that you have to look at the time zones themselves. Many are in the wrong time one based on solar time.