[0]: https://time.com/5888112/daylight-savings-time-permanent/

I'd like to see that studied closely in light of the fact that 1 in 3 Americans suffers from chronic sleep deprivation.

And just because people have earlier schedules doesn't mean that they operate well with earlier schedules -- and because society programs us for decades to wake up earlier and to view oversleeping as sloth just asking people what their preferred sleep schedule is may bias results. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that half the people in this thread who think they really want that hour of light at the end of the day wouldn't function much better if they got more sleep in the morning.

There's also the asymmetry where people who are early risers want that extra hour of light in the evening -- at the cost of the late sleepers suffering chronic sleep deprivation and all the related health costs ("I want an extra hour of light, and you dying early of a heart attack is a small cost to pay for that").

It does not impact when people choose to go to sleep, which is the biggest predictive factor in how much sleep they get.

This is why a lot of people advice against using screens late at night—because they contain a lot more blue light than regular household lights, and thus throw our bodies out of balance. But, those are still much smaller light sources than the sun!

I don't understand how this can be true. If it's better for people to wake up an hour earlier or later, then do that. Who cares what the clock says?

I would be interested to see if the split of opinion on this has to do with early risers/night owl orientation primarily, for me more light earlier has almost no value, but light at the end of the work day is worth a lot.

I agree with this, but why wouldn't we stay on standard time and just all switch to starting school and work an hour earlier?

It would achieve the same thing as permanent DST except it would also preserve the property of our time system that midnight and noon are the times that the sun is lowest and highest in the sky.

People whose schedules are dictated by another entity, such as a school or employer.

I will say, however, that the ballot measure was confused by the arguments, with both sides arguing against time changes.

>Proposition 12 (1949), a ballot initiative that established DST in California, needed to be repealed. In California, a ballot initiative cannot be repealed without the consent of voters. Therefore, the state legislature could not take action to change time policy unless voters approved Proposition 7. This applied to both permanent daylight savings time and permanent standard time.[1]

As I understand, Prop 7 was needed to undo Prop 12, which then gave the CA state legislature the power to go with DST all year around, which they have indicated they want to since 2016:

>In 2016, the California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass an act that would allow California to adopt year-round DST.[2]

It seems that it's the federal government preventing the states from doing what they want to do, hence my quip about states' rights.

Which I also like. We can call it the Western time zone.

I would prefer standard time, but I'll accept any time as long as days are always 86400 seconds (+/- 1 second). I'm willing to have a separate discussion about leap seconds, but that seems like it's being determined by concensus among national standards bodies, not democratic action, so I have less influence.

Here we have a month where daylight isn't a whole lot better than 8:00-5:00, so it's always amusing to hear people say that they like it to be daylight when they wake up (so 1.5 hours less sun here than San Francisco today, which is where the last person I saw with that complaint lives).

The text authorized the State legislature to make the change if Congress passed a law allowing the State to make the change. It passed.

I hate that it's permanent DST, though. Why make noon at one hour past the sun at its highest point? So annoying.

I have a friend that is also annoyed by this prospect, but I never could understand why. I mean I can see why people have opinions based on morning/evening light, but is "high noon should be noon" really that big a deal? I mean even if the center of every timezone had high noon set at noon, you'd still end up having the edges of the same timezone having their high noon closer to 11:30 and 12:30. The fact is that local times have had their high noon disassociated from 12:00 for quite a while. Other than the principle of the thing, I just don't see why having around 1:00 really is such a bother.

edit: I really can't understand why you're being downvoted. Your frustration shouldn't be ignored.

Never did I argue that it does not matter. In fact I didn't even take a position on the matter. I specifically asked _you_ about _your_ beliefs.

> So in that case why not pick the one that actually makes sense according to the motion of the solar system? If I have to make a choice between two equally logical solutions, I always pick the most beautiful or most symmetrical. Why not?

Why not? As I pointed out, there are other considerations at play like morning/evening light. You apparently believe that the balance of beauty and symmetry with the solar system is the most important consideration. I don't personally consider that very important.

I never stated otherwise.

> The only single reason I can think to choose one clock over another is that one synchronises with the solar system and one does not.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Having extra daylight in the morning (i.e. pre-12:00) and the afternoon (i.e. post 12:00) are reasons. The amount of light before and after school/work/etc. has real effects.

> ...there is nothing else to consider.

This is factually untrue. You may not consider other reasons as important as your own, but stop pretending they don't exist.

By the way, you are an extremely irritating person to discuss with. I started this conversation specifically to hear your side and you are taking the opportunity to ignore and belittles ideas other than your own. It's pretty childish honestly.

I feel exactly the same way about you.

This issue is fascinating as it seems people just can't talk about it rationally. I will stop now.

In the UK we have already tried "permanent DST" (if that's what you want to call it): we were on UTC+1 through three winters: 1968-1971. From what I've heard, the Scots hated it and, according to Wikipedia, "on a free vote, the House of Commons voted by 366 to 81 votes to end the experiment".

I think Ireland joined in the experiment back then. There's a similar problem to the problem with Brexit: it would annoy some people if Northern Ireland were to have a different time from Ireland, and it would annoy some people if Northern Ireleand were to have a different time from the rest of the UK. I think all-year UTC would make a lot more sense and be generally more acceptable for the British Isles (UK + Ireland) than all-year UTC+1.

I also think Spain should consider switching to UTC. Some poeple claim they only switched to UTC+1 in the first place because of Franco's friendship with Hitler.

It's interesting how we try to solve problems.

Liiiiike making everybody move over to DST before making the time permanent?

I mean, sure, we're pretty used to doing it, but that's a sunk cost fallacy, isn't it? Better to freeze the time zones before forcing everyone going through it?

I can do that in the winter, sure, but in the summer there's a distinct lack of snow, which is nice.

The clock is just this little thing on your wall. The Sun is almighty and the reason why you're here. Forget the clock!

You can't please everyone.

Or they could buy blackout curtains or a sleep mask?

(I am pretty much straddling 70 degrees north as I type this - sun last seen Nov 23rd, comes back in two weeks. Midnight sun between May 17th and July 26th.)

Um, no? For example, in Alaska during the summer (in the northern hemisphere) there's a period of the year where they have sunlight 24 hours a day. In winter, they have 24 hours of darkness.

So no, it's not a "south" thing (until you get to, for example, Antarctica). The closer to the equator, the less extreme the changes are.

EDIT: I see your addition in specifying the sunset time right now, whereas the rest of the thread seems to be aimed at the extremes, which will be closer to the summer and winter solstices. We just passed the winter solstice, so of course the sun will be going down quite early (in the northern hemisphere).

But I also think this person is choosing DST over ST because, in 2019, Florida passed a law to make DST the normal time. Of course, it was symbolic because a state can't choose to be on DST (only to stay on ST): https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/florida-passed-a-bi...

I don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things which one you pick: it’s going to suck for some.

In the real world, shrewd business lobbies certainly have too much interest one way or the other to let fate decide.

For the summer solstice though it's light out till almost 10pm

"Standard time" is just a name. Daylight time is actually more "standard" from the perspective of most Americans.

Both are workable, but one is more familiar, and that's daylight time.

Adding 1 hr is advantageous because it will give the Americas (UTC -8 to -5, minus Hawaii and Alaska) an extra usable overlap hour for meetings with Europe (~UTC 0 to +2), and with Asia-Pacific (~UTC +8 to +9) for 18 weeks of the year.

Europe observes daylight savings, but Asia largely doesn't [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight_saving_time

DST gives us daylight to enjoy at the end of the day.

I don't care if it's dark in the morning. I'm not a morning person, and I want the sun reserved for the evening.

Restaurants and businesses are going to like this change too.