"Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas. I don't think I have to explain why standard time zones are clearly worth the tradeoff around the accuracy of "noon".

You are also only mentioning a subset of research on the subject. Increasing ambient light in the evenings is directly associated with reduction in evening crime.

https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/97/5/1093/58281...

That said, there is clearly a lot of scientific evidence that it would be better if people got up earlier and enjoyed the morning light. In practice, that doesn't seem to be what "most people" actually do. The time that most people engage in activities is in the evenings, after work, not in the morning before work. As such, it seems a clear win to give more daylight in the times people are actually enjoying themselves, rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark.

> "Noon should be at noon" is not coherent in a world where we have standardized time zones across broad geographic areas.

You are ignoring the entire portion of the comment that addresses this complaint: it applies equally to either position, thus, it's a non-argument.

> [less crime during DST]

Well, that's interesting, perhaps, but still one has to weight it against the alternative. It seems a quick Google says things like DST-attributed deaths alone are ~$200M/yr, an order of magnitude larger effect, not to mention the emotional toll. So while I grant that as an argument against… I'm not sure it is enough.

> rather than condemning most of the country to leave work in the pitch dark.

Instead, you condemn the country to arrive at work in the dark.

It was also tried before, and people hated it:

> Polling in November and December 1973 showed strong and in some cases overwhelming support — 57 percent in a Gallup poll, 74 percent in a Louis Harris and Associates poll, and 73 percent in a poll from the Roper Organization.

> […] In a Roper poll conducted in February and March, just 30 percent remained in favor of year-round daylight saving time, while a majority favored switching times again. Louis Harris polling in March showed just 19 percent of people said it had been a good idea, while about twice as many — 43 percent — said it was a bad one.

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/15/no-more-c...)

Even if the data you showed were true (I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side), of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes then any kind contact sport among kids/teens would be banned (including soccer, basketball, baseball, football, hockey), sugary soda's would be outlawed, fast food heavily restricted and other dangerous activities like skiing and snowboarding aggressively regulated to outright banned.

We make tradeoffs all the time to give the people the option to do the things they enjoy doing even if it means non-optimal public health outcomes. perma-DST is incredibly popular as most people prefer having the option of extra daylight in the evening.

> I have seen similar arguments from the pro-DST side

You have to be somewhat careful when reading pro-DST articles; yes, the same sorts of arguments tend to be presented, but when I read carefully, they're always vs. the status quo; I've yet to see it vs. perma-standard. That is "we should switch to perma-DST b/c it is better than normal-DST/the status quo." I think that argument is probably correct; the point is that perma-standard-time is better yet.

> of all decisions were based on optimizing public health outcomes […] aggressively regulated to outright banned.

… well… perhaps we shouldn't be giving children concussions & obesity that lead to a long list of health problems down the line …

But aside from that, most of those a parent or the person themself can simply opt out of. I can't readily opt out of society's time-keeping; I'm going to have to use the same system to communicate with the rest of y'all. And AFAICT, perma-standard is a better overall decision, and perma-DST is a local maxima of sorts.

> Because, aside from that noon should be at noon

I disagree. Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be.

We should all use UTC.

> Noon should be whatever noon's offset from UTC should be.

I presume one wants a fixed offset / a fixed 24h day (modulo leap days). (The length of a day changes during the year. And I mean in the sense of "the time between high noon on one day to the next" changes, not the amount of sunlight, which of course changes. This is what the "mean" in "mean solar time" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time#Apparent_solar_time)