Apparently you didn’t see this article (linked in the submission article) about the downsides of permanent DST:

https://herf.medium.com/why-standard-time-is-better-e586b500...

The human body “needs” DST like diabetes needs cookies.

Quite a few folks/societies that study chronobiology and sleep rhythms have put out statements that permanent Standard Time is what we should ideally be using.

A comment of mine from a few months ago with links to various position papers, many of which are referenced in the story you linked to:

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26416574

The Society for Research on Biological Rhythms:

> Local and national governments around the world are currently considering the elimination of the annual switch to and from Daylight Saving Time (DST). As an international organization of scientists dedicated to studying circadian and other biological rhythms, the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms (SRBR) engaged experts in the field to write a Position Paper on the consequences of choosing to live on DST or Standard Time (ST). The authors take the position that, based on comparisons of large populations living in DST or ST or on western versus eastern edges of time zones, the advantages of permanent ST outweigh switching to DST annually or permanently. Four peer reviewers provided expert critiques of the initial submission, and the SRBR Executive Board approved the revised manuscript as a Position Paper to help educate the public in their evaluation of current legislative actions to end DST.

* https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31170882/

* https://doi.org/10.1177/0748730419854197

World Federation of Societies for Chronobiology:

> In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently. […]

* https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2019.0094...

* https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00944

If anyone think that these are wrong, feel free to contact the original authors.

Why not just use standard time, and shift schedules so that standard office hours are from 10am-6pm?

Actually if you like daylight "saving" time you need to shift to 8am-4pm.

It is far more difficult to get thousands of businesses to coordinate on a fundamental cultural shift to a 10a-6p working day, than to just not change clocks back after switching to DST one last time.

People say that but I'm not sure it's true. As long as they all agree about what time it is at any given moment (which is something we're not proposing to change) why do their business hours even have to line up perfectly? And to the extend that they do need to, wouldn't they just sort of figure it out over the course of a week or a month and then not have to worry about at again from that point on?

Also, it would be a shift to an 8-4 working day, right, if we were going to keep the clocks on standard time year round?

> wouldn't they just sort of figure it out over the course of a week or a month and then not have to worry about at again from that point on?

You'd have to re-negotiate every time you work with a new client. Are they on 9-5? Or 10-6? When can we schedule that weekly call? Businesses have no incentive to go through this headache, so they won't.

We already shift our working hours twice a year with practically no issues. Let's just not switch back once.

> You'd have to re-negotiate every time you work with a new client. Are they on 9-5? Or 10-6? When can we schedule that weekly call? Businesses have no incentive to go through this headache, so they won't.

My experience is that these meeting coordinations still have to happen. Even within your own company, in the same office building.

Seems a lot harder to make 2 changes instead of 1. Especially when the second change would have to be individually apply by every workplace.