> 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.

Your argument is that it doesn't matter. 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?

> Your argument is that it doesn't matter.

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.

Changing the clock does not alter the amount of daylight. I'm sure you don't need to go and adjust your clock now to convince yourself of this. So what considerations are there? It simply does not matter. 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. I don't consider it more important than anything else because there is nothing else to consider.

> Changing the clock does not alter the amount of daylight. I'm sure you don't need to go and adjust your clock now to convince yourself of this.

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.

> 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.

Solar noon is already pretty far from clock noon for most people around the world. Time zones all but guarantee that. http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-t...

Solar noon here is at 1:50 during DST and never much earlier than 12:50.

Personally, I totally agree with you that 12:00 should be roughly when the sun is at its highest. I suspect that's not a major consideration for most people, however.

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.

Permanent DST was also tried in Russia, but became very unpopular and was quickly reverted. IIRC mainly because of public health reasons.