Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to Dump Time Zones

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 555 posts

Re: Time to Dump Time Zones

#11

Post by mancerayder »

facorreia wrote: post #5

I think the article makes a valid point but it can't get past Americanisms like "noon" or "4 p.m." If people were to adapt UTC, those would be 12:00 and 16:00 respectively. And that just reinforces the main point, that the numbers are largely arbitrary -- but descriptions like "after mid-day" (p.m.) aren't.

I think the article makes a valid point but it can't get past Americanisms like "noon" or "4 p.m."

Americanisms? Noon in French == "midi" and in Spanish == "mediodia". I'm guessing you're British? I'm pretty sure people say that there in the UK, as well.

The sentiment that 24H time is less confusing to express than 12, I do sympathize with.

Re: Time to Dump Time Zones

#12

Post by mjevans »

As this version of the thread seems to have more points I'll comment here.

I completely agree with everyone using UTC for numeric time numbering.

I DISAGREE, with remapping 'noon', 'midnight', 'morning', etc. All of the relative descriptions for when in the local solar day a thing is should be approximate local references.

An example: 'lunch' and 'noon' would still be the time in the middle of the local solar day that people get a meal. (Somewhere around 11AM to 2PM in current local times)

Re: Time to Dump Time Zones

#17

Post by darawk »

Hmm...this is an interesting idea. However, the core of the argument seems to be this:

> “The economy — that’s all of us — would receive a permanent ‘harmonization dividend’ ”— the efficiency benefits that come from a unified time zone.

But this editorial is pretty light on actually supporting that. The basic argument seems to be that it reduces 'translation costs'. But..does it? What about the benefits of being able to refer to times without having to localize them? If my friend on the other side of the country says "I woke up at 9 this morning", I have a pretty good idea of what that means. If we used this new system, i'd have to mentally translate.

In terms of scheduling things, it would get easier in some ways and likely harder in others. If say, I want to schedule a conference call at 3, yes, 3 is the same time for everyone, but i'd still have to do some mental sanity checks to ensure that that time is reasonable for everyone who might be participating.

Overall, is there really an efficiency gain to be had here? I'm not taking the firm position that there isn't, btw. Just a bit skeptical and curious to hear a better argument in its favor if anyone has got one.

Re: Time to Dump Time Zones

#19

Post by edblarney »

The article is upside down.

"Perhaps you’re asking why the Greenwich meridian gets to define earth time. "

It doesn't. Everybody gets to have their own, proper time.

In comparing times, we +/- based on an arbitrary spot, and that's it.

Time zones are a great solution to a problem.

People want their time in local terms.

Everyone waking up and going to bed at different times is an utterly ridiculous concept.

FYI - if you want to use UTC - you're free to do that today.

To those suggesting we should use UTC: walk down the street and look at regular people. 'Other time zones' are irrelevant to them - utterly. There are very few people who need to deal with other time zones.

It might be remotely possible to put an entire nation on one time - i.e. put America on 'Mountain Time' - it might be possible to convince New Yorkers and Californians that they are getting up earlier/later etc.. But even that wouldn't be very useful in the end.

Post reply on HN