> I wonder where the preference for DST then comes from?

For me, I simply want more daylight in the evening.

I don't give a shit about waking up with the sun. I'm going to sleep until 10 or 11 AM on the weekends anyways, so I want the daylight to be shifted later so I have more daylight to do things.

Somewhere else in this thread, someone put forth the idea of a fixed dawn at 7 AM. I'd rather have a fixed dusk at 9 PM. That would mean that the sun might not rise until after noon during the shortest days of the year, but that's fine by me. Obviously, such a system is not feasible (We'd have to change our clocks every day!), but if it was, it'd be my preference.

The way I heard the story—and that story is almost certainly fictional—preference from DST comes from legislators—at a time when they were all upper-middle to upper class white men—that only knew cushy 9-17 jobs and valued their own ability to go home and have a barbecue over everybody else’s ability to wake up with the sun. I bet HN’s demographic aligns pretty overwhelmingly with the preference for an after work barbecue.

But that's not in line with those studies: I'd expect people in Eastern sides of timezones to prefer DST, which certainly includes cities like Boston or New York or Washington D.C. And vice versa, those in Western parts to prefer standard time.

Still, even if we allow for 9-17 employees having these preferences, they'd be waking up in the dark hour (somebody mentioned Sun rising at 8:30 in SF in late December with DST, and 7:30 without, which still precludes most of non-white-collar jobs too, and depending on the commute, some white collar jobs too).

Not questioning you, ofc, just wondering why none of the stuff adds up? :)

As for HN demographics, I am not sure that's true: while they are mostly white collar workers, they also get a lot of flexibility so they could probably just get up a few hours earlier to start working for more afternoon daylight.