Expect it to go no further. While this is as far as the bill has gotten so far, the same bill has been introduced every year for the last 5 years and goes nowhere along with many other bills...
Expect it to go no further. While this is as far as the bill has gotten so far, the same bill has been introduced every year for the last 5 years and goes nowhere along with many other bills throughout history at both the federal and state level that have gone nowhere.
Add to it, that "permanent DST" increases pollution, fuel consumption, energy costs, and overall spending while being detrimental to your health. Facts are, permanent standard time (the time in the 4 months of winter) is the "correct" time for you biologically and ethically.
It doesn't appear that the wikipedia page backs up this assertion? The linked study is a brief meta-analysis that concludes reductions in electricity usage vary by area and/or are statistically...
Add to it, that "permanent DST" increases pollution, fuel consumption, energy costs, and overall spending
It doesn't appear that the wikipedia page backs up this assertion?
The linked study is a brief meta-analysis that concludes reductions in electricity usage vary by area and/or are statistically insignificant. Then they conduct a singular study extremely light on details (are there details on methodology available?) and ultimately conclude
Our analysis does not, of course, suggest that “saving” daylight will always cost electricity, but it, combined with much of the existing literature, casts doubt on the longstanding justification for the policy.
Which is fair enough I guess, but I don't think the evidence exists to claim permanent standard time is an ethically superior choice?
Ethics are more than just the environmental ones, such as the 10 linked articles on health and safety. There's also the fact that it's supported by petroleum lobbyists (and everyone else in the...
Ethics are more than just the environmental ones, such as the 10 linked articles on health and safety. There's also the fact that it's supported by petroleum lobbyists (and everyone else in the lobbying group) that aren't as willing to release their studies, but sure as hell aren't going to support something that reduces petroleum consumption.
I don't think that alone makes it unethical. It's likely to increase consumption, I think that's true, because people will do more stuff including choosing to use motor vehicles. However, there is...
There's also the fact that it's supported by petroleum lobbyists
I don't think that alone makes it unethical. It's likely to increase consumption, I think that's true, because people will do more stuff including choosing to use motor vehicles. However, there is also utility in that, which is why I think its popular. If that's unethical, the ethical thing to do would be to try and reduce the amount of daylight hours available after the work day to reduce consumption.
The health concerns do appear legitimate. One thing that does strike me as odd though is that no mention of latitude is mentioned in those studies. Someone in my latitude is already dealing with more variation of the sun's cycle within each DT/ST cycle than someone in your latitude (TX?) would endure from switching to permanent DST. And people further north than me have it even worse. That seems much more extreme to me than looking at variation in sleep patterns between edges of the time zone, which is what one of those studies looked at.
Wouldn't we just shift our lives over 1 hour? We don't now because DST is for the minority of the year. But 4pm could eventually become the new 5pm if we were locked into DST.
Wouldn't we just shift our lives over 1 hour? We don't now because DST is for the minority of the year. But 4pm could eventually become the new 5pm if we were locked into DST.
One piece of evidence that people would not shift is that Russia implemented permanent DST and a few year later switched to standard time after complaints. Also I remember quite a few new stories...
One piece of evidence that people would not shift is that Russia implemented permanent DST and a few year later switched to standard time after complaints. Also I remember quite a few new stories of schools shifting their schedule later into the day, but from what I've seen it's not really taken off, changing schedules seems to be a tall order. Though if such a shift did occur, I could see it varying regionally, town to town possibly.
That sounds like a very dubious conclusion. Even in not-particularly northern latitudes day/night cycles vary by hours over the course of the year anyway. They just happen gradually. DST causes...
That sounds like a very dubious conclusion. Even in not-particularly northern latitudes day/night cycles vary by hours over the course of the year anyway. They just happen gradually. DST causes jet lag because it's a shift that happens abruptly. If there are no abrupt shifts there won't be any permanent jet lag. Especially being as how basically everyone in the developed world lives and works, mostly under artificial lighting anyway.
As with most things that die in the legislature, the real story why can often be gleaned by seeing who is paying the PAC that opposes it:
Seasonal observation of DST was first enacted in the US during World Wars I and II, as an attempt to conserve fuel. The practice was unpopular and promptly repealed after each war; however, lobbyists from the petroleum industry lobbied to restore DST, as they had noticed it actually increased fuel consumption. Petroleum lobbyists joined with lobbyists from golf and candy corporations in the 1980s to form the National Daylight Saving Time Coalition, and they have twice since succeeded in extending the length of DST's observation from six months to seven in 1986, and again to eight months in 2005.[1][21][24][40][41] The observation of DST has also been found to increase residential energy costs and pollution costs by several million dollars per year.[42]
See in a world where artificial lighting is commonplace enough to where you need to go through special effort to avoid it, where light pollution is bad enough to where much of the starscape is...
So again, like I said before, it's not something our bodies would "just get used to". We would be forcing ourselves awake in mornings that would be much darker than they otherwise would be if we just stayed on permanent time (in the winter at least).
See in a world where artificial lighting is commonplace enough to where you need to go through special effort to avoid it, where light pollution is bad enough to where much of the starscape is invisible and most of the urban wildlife have behavioral issues from lack of sleep, and people buy things like blackout curtains I really just don’t see where the permanent DST is the thing that tips it over the edge.
Yea. But in the interest of harm reduction, lets fully eliminate the arbitrary twice-a-year time hop that wreaks havoc on everyones rythem. Let alone the hours saved not needing to deal with the...
Yea. But in the interest of harm reduction, lets fully eliminate the arbitrary twice-a-year time hop that wreaks havoc on everyones rythem. Let alone the hours saved not needing to deal with the 'clocks rewind annually' problems. Doing it now while everyone is getting over their seasonal depression is a great idea.
The ultimate problem is that our bodies are not well adapted to the timeclock. Especially the farther you get from the equator. But the industrialists love it.
I'm not sure "just getting it out of the way now" is particularly compelling when there's actual evidence that freezing it in Standard time has benefits over that. They're not mindblowing, but...
I'm not sure "just getting it out of the way now" is particularly compelling when there's actual evidence that freezing it in Standard time has benefits over that. They're not mindblowing, but they're compelling enough for me. And the reverse is apparently enough for the fossil fuel industry to spend time and on twisting law in favor of it. Trying to avoid just being contrarian, but that alone seems compelling enough to push back.
I know it probably won't pass, but I always imagine trying to explain the process of turning back the clocks to imaginary future children in a world where there is no longer daylight savings....
I know it probably won't pass, but I always imagine trying to explain the process of turning back the clocks to imaginary future children in a world where there is no longer daylight savings. Think about explaining that we all collectively shifted an hour twice a year. In a world where that doesn't exist it sounds extremely absurd.
Frankly, my primary motivation for wanting Daylight Saving to go away is the experience and perspective of a software engineer. It's annoying to have to deal with exceptions, instead of everything...
Frankly, my primary motivation for wanting Daylight Saving to go away is the experience and perspective of a software engineer. It's annoying to have to deal with exceptions, instead of everything (every hour, day, week, month, year) is the same.
That said, this change probably won't help for another 50+ years, because historical data still has to be accounted for. Old records will still be from the DST era, and so calculations and reporting involving them will still need to account for DST.
Surprised to see this. As for whether it seems likely that it will pass the House, the fact that it got through unanimously seems like a sign that it should, especially with this Senate. This...
Surprised to see this. As for whether it seems likely that it will pass the House, the fact that it got through unanimously seems like a sign that it should, especially with this Senate. This article though feels very one-sided, mostly a long list of interest groups and predicted benefits, without any of the usual complaints. The typical one being that people, especially children, would be making morning commutes while its still very dark out.
Also I always find the idea of permanent DST a bit silly, if you're not changing clocks with the seasons, then you're not really doing anything special. Of course I realize getting everyone to change their school and business hours to be laterearlier in the day would be difficult, it's just odd to so intentionally pick timezones that put solar noon away from twelve o'clock.
Even if it does pass, it might not stick, Russia switched to permanent DST before and switched to standard time just a fews later.
there's a significant amount of evidence (including a CDC page literally titled Schools Start Too Early) that having schools start later in the day would benefit children. perhaps this DST change,...
people, especially children, would be making morning commutes while its still very dark out.
there's a significant amount of evidence (including a CDC page literally titled Schools Start Too Early) that having schools start later in the day would benefit children.
perhaps this DST change, and the resulting worries about kids having unsafe commutes to school in the dark, will help push more widespread adoption of later school starts.
I've always thought that the 'kids in the dark' thing was overblown. Teach your kids to carry lights and reflectors, like we did in the 80s/90s, where with or without DST we had dark commutes...
I've always thought that the 'kids in the dark' thing was overblown.
Teach your kids to carry lights and reflectors, like we did in the 80s/90s, where with or without DST we had dark commutes trhoughout the school year.
Maybe once people quit being so afraid of the dark, we can start dialing down the light pollution. We don't need every town in america lit up like a Christmas tree 24/7.
My understanding is that the school argument is less about danger in the dark and more about puberty and it shifting a person's biological clock later in the day. If you're going to have trouble...
My understanding is that the school argument is less about danger in the dark and more about puberty and it shifting a person's biological clock later in the day. If you're going to have trouble getting to bed until the sun's been down for at least (making up a number here) 6 hours and want to sleep for 9 hours, then you're better off having school start 2 hours after sun rise instead of 1.
My house representative just sent out a poll to the people on his email list to gather some info about what people think. Options were (paraphrased): Stay the same Permanent DST Permanent standard...
My house representative just sent out a poll to the people on his email list to gather some info about what people think. Options were (paraphrased):
Stay the same
Permanent DST
Permanent standard time
IDK, just stop switching.
Unsure/neutral
I went with IDK, just don’t switch. I hope this goes through.
This is an incredibly petty and fully uninformed opinion for me to hold, but it's the honest truth of how I feel about this topic: I would much prefer permanent standard time over permanent...
This is an incredibly petty and fully uninformed opinion for me to hold, but it's the honest truth of how I feel about this topic: I would much prefer permanent standard time over permanent daylight savings time, because permanent daylight savings time means that an hour gets taken from me and I will never get it back. Let me have my time!
Expect it to go no further. While this is as far as the bill has gotten so far, the same bill has been introduced every year for the last 5 years and goes nowhere along with many other bills throughout history at both the federal and state level that have gone nowhere.
Add to it, that "permanent DST" increases pollution, fuel consumption, energy costs, and overall spending while being detrimental to your health. Facts are, permanent standard time (the time in the 4 months of winter) is the "correct" time for you biologically and ethically.
It doesn't appear that the wikipedia page backs up this assertion?
The linked study is a brief meta-analysis that concludes reductions in electricity usage vary by area and/or are statistically insignificant. Then they conduct a singular study extremely light on details (are there details on methodology available?) and ultimately conclude
Which is fair enough I guess, but I don't think the evidence exists to claim permanent standard time is an ethically superior choice?
Ethics are more than just the environmental ones, such as the 10 linked articles on health and safety. There's also the fact that it's supported by petroleum lobbyists (and everyone else in the lobbying group) that aren't as willing to release their studies, but sure as hell aren't going to support something that reduces petroleum consumption.
I don't think that alone makes it unethical. It's likely to increase consumption, I think that's true, because people will do more stuff including choosing to use motor vehicles. However, there is also utility in that, which is why I think its popular. If that's unethical, the ethical thing to do would be to try and reduce the amount of daylight hours available after the work day to reduce consumption.
The health concerns do appear legitimate. One thing that does strike me as odd though is that no mention of latitude is mentioned in those studies. Someone in my latitude is already dealing with more variation of the sun's cycle within each DT/ST cycle than someone in your latitude (TX?) would endure from switching to permanent DST. And people further north than me have it even worse. That seems much more extreme to me than looking at variation in sleep patterns between edges of the time zone, which is what one of those studies looked at.
Wouldn't we just shift our lives over 1 hour? We don't now because DST is for the minority of the year. But 4pm could eventually become the new 5pm if we were locked into DST.
One piece of evidence that people would not shift is that Russia implemented permanent DST and a few year later switched to standard time after complaints. Also I remember quite a few new stories of schools shifting their schedule later into the day, but from what I've seen it's not really taken off, changing schedules seems to be a tall order. Though if such a shift did occur, I could see it varying regionally, town to town possibly.
That sounds like a very dubious conclusion. Even in not-particularly northern latitudes day/night cycles vary by hours over the course of the year anyway. They just happen gradually. DST causes jet lag because it's a shift that happens abruptly. If there are no abrupt shifts there won't be any permanent jet lag. Especially being as how basically everyone in the developed world lives and works, mostly under artificial lighting anyway.
As with most things that die in the legislature, the real story why can often be gleaned by seeing who is paying the PAC that opposes it:
See in a world where artificial lighting is commonplace enough to where you need to go through special effort to avoid it, where light pollution is bad enough to where much of the starscape is invisible and most of the urban wildlife have behavioral issues from lack of sleep, and people buy things like blackout curtains I really just don’t see where the permanent DST is the thing that tips it over the edge.
Yea. But in the interest of harm reduction, lets fully eliminate the arbitrary twice-a-year time hop that wreaks havoc on everyones rythem. Let alone the hours saved not needing to deal with the 'clocks rewind annually' problems. Doing it now while everyone is getting over their seasonal depression is a great idea.
The ultimate problem is that our bodies are not well adapted to the timeclock. Especially the farther you get from the equator. But the industrialists love it.
I'm not sure "just getting it out of the way now" is particularly compelling when there's actual evidence that freezing it in Standard time has benefits over that. They're not mindblowing, but they're compelling enough for me. And the reverse is apparently enough for the fossil fuel industry to spend time and on twisting law in favor of it. Trying to avoid just being contrarian, but that alone seems compelling enough to push back.
I know it probably won't pass, but I always imagine trying to explain the process of turning back the clocks to imaginary future children in a world where there is no longer daylight savings. Think about explaining that we all collectively shifted an hour twice a year. In a world where that doesn't exist it sounds extremely absurd.
My condolences to datetime library maintainers
Frankly, my primary motivation for wanting Daylight Saving to go away is the experience and perspective of a software engineer. It's annoying to have to deal with exceptions, instead of everything (every hour, day, week, month, year) is the same.
That said, this change probably won't help for another 50+ years, because historical data still has to be accounted for. Old records will still be from the DST era, and so calculations and reporting involving them will still need to account for DST.
Surprised to see this. As for whether it seems likely that it will pass the House, the fact that it got through unanimously seems like a sign that it should, especially with this Senate. This article though feels very one-sided, mostly a long list of interest groups and predicted benefits, without any of the usual complaints. The typical one being that people, especially children, would be making morning commutes while its still very dark out.
Also I always find the idea of permanent DST a bit silly, if you're not changing clocks with the seasons, then you're not really doing anything special. Of course I realize getting everyone to change their school and business hours to be
laterearlier in the day would be difficult, it's just odd to so intentionally pick timezones that put solar noon away from twelve o'clock.Even if it does pass, it might not stick, Russia switched to permanent DST before and switched to standard time just a fews later.
Even if we settle on DST for now for no good reason, it's still better than changing twice a year.
Eh, I have mixed thoughts on the whole thing. I'm certainly enjoying DST now.
there's a significant amount of evidence (including a CDC page literally titled Schools Start Too Early) that having schools start later in the day would benefit children.
perhaps this DST change, and the resulting worries about kids having unsafe commutes to school in the dark, will help push more widespread adoption of later school starts.
I've always thought that the 'kids in the dark' thing was overblown.
Teach your kids to carry lights and reflectors, like we did in the 80s/90s, where with or without DST we had dark commutes trhoughout the school year.
Maybe once people quit being so afraid of the dark, we can start dialing down the light pollution. We don't need every town in america lit up like a Christmas tree 24/7.
My understanding is that the school argument is less about danger in the dark and more about puberty and it shifting a person's biological clock later in the day. If you're going to have trouble getting to bed until the sun's been down for at least (making up a number here) 6 hours and want to sleep for 9 hours, then you're better off having school start 2 hours after sun rise instead of 1.
I believe the reason for schools starting early is so that parents can prepare and take their kids to school before going to their jobs.
My house representative just sent out a poll to the people on his email list to gather some info about what people think. Options were (paraphrased):
Stay the same
Permanent DST
Permanent standard time
IDK, just stop switching.
Unsure/neutral
I went with IDK, just don’t switch. I hope this goes through.
This is an incredibly petty and fully uninformed opinion for me to hold, but it's the honest truth of how I feel about this topic: I would much prefer permanent standard time over permanent daylight savings time, because permanent daylight savings time means that an hour gets taken from me and I will never get it back. Let me have my time!