Civilized said:
SmaptyWolf said:
hokiewolf said:
Hell yeah get it done!
It's funny, the DST debate is one of those issues that has no correct answer... it's totally dependent on where you live and how much you care about morning or evening sun. I'm a big fan of permanent DST, but we'd need to accept that a minority of people would rightfully hate it.
https://observablehq.com/@awoodruff/daylight-saving-time-gripe-assistant-tool
Or to nerd out even more:
https://andywoodruff.com/blog/where-to-hate-daylight-saving-time-and-where-to-love-it/
Yeah where you fall is totally personal preference, but above all, I think we should pick either standard or DST and roll with it.
Resetting the clocks twice a year is the worst of the three possible solutions from convenience and macro health perspectives.
I definitely agree, I'd prefer permanent DST. Here in CT the fall time switch is a punch in the gut... goes from getting dark at 5:30 to 4:30! Absolutely sucks. Just saying, the extra evening sunlight for everyone is awesome and should be our priority, but the mornings really do push beyond "reasonable" in some areas.
If you fiddle around with those interactive maps, you notice that people who live in the western half of their time zones have it worse in the morning, and on the western border of each time zone they get totally shafted. Permanent DST would mean a pretty large minority of people would have around 100 days a year where the sun rises between 8:30am and 9am! You can get used to anything I guess, but I doubt that's anyone's personal preference.
One solution might be to tweak the time zone borders to take the edge off of the extremes.
Regardless, we should look back to 1974 when Nixon actually did this, and figure out why that attempt at permanent DST only lasted a year before everyone hated it and demanded it be switched back.
