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

In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 140 posts

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#41

Post by comex »

contravariant wrote: post #34
singingboyo wrote: post #10

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get…

Well sure, but maybe instead of changing the schedule of all schools in the state (which would in turn affect the schedules of parents etc.) it would be easier to just not change the clock? Using the statement 'well maybe school shouldn't start so early then' as an argument in favour of making schools start earlier seems rather contradictory.

It’s not an argument in favor, but a defense to an argument against. The reasoning goes that a lot of other things would be better served by being moved an hour earlier, even if school wouldn’t.

That said, even for K12 students, I’d say it’s a give and take. Waking up and going out in the dark each morning does sound bad for mood and potentially for circadian rhythms. But school gets out at 3PM, and on the shortest days of the year, the sun sets around 5PM. That leaves only 2 hours to potentially spend outdoors in the sun, at best; after-school activities can easily consume much or all of that time, not to mention homework. Or even if you spend all day indoors, the earlier the sun sets, the sooner your body starts producing more melatonin and making you feel tired; robust artificial lighting can help, but then it’s harder when you are ready to start winding down for the day. And then there’s seasonal affective disorder (Google it). In all these cases, going from 2 to 3 hours of sunlight after school would be a big help.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#42

Post by vondur »

Impossible wrote: post #31
singingboyo wrote: post #10

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get…

Overall it would be better for the students and it fixes safety concerns, which I agree is a weak argument but 'for the children' is always a great political card to play. The issue is I don't think making the school day start later will ever get support from teachers, so it won't be considered for most school districts even if its better for the students.

Yes. Teachers unions would never agree to have to start later in the day.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#43

Post by CalRobert »

1) Nothing is changing unless federal law changes. So basically, nothing is changing

2) For those who have calls with people in Europe this would be a big plus since the EU looks likely to go to DST year round. If this happens and California keeps switching then UK/ROI/Portugal will be 9 hours off from CA half the year, and western Europe 10 hours off. It's hard enough to schedule calls with an 8 hour difference.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#44

Post by twoodfin »

secabeen wrote: post #12
taylodl wrote: post #11

So when the US East Coast springs forward 1 hour California is then going to be 4 hours behind? That's gonna make West Coast travel even worse.

No. Under this plan, in the winter, CA would be 2 hours behind the East Coast, and the summer, 3 hours behind.

Several of the New England states are contemplating a move to year-round Atlantic Time, which would keep them synced 3 hours ahead of California.

I’d love that. There’s no reason why a city at the latitude of Boston should have to endure 4:30 sunsets.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#45

Post by dragonwriter »

_kst_ wrote: post #37

Proposition 7 doesn't immediately change anything. It authorizes the state legislature to change the DST rules if authorized by federal law. Reading the text of the revised law, it does seem to emphasize the possibility of going to year-round DST as opposed to year-round Standard Time (which is what I would prefer). One thing I'm not clear about is how the state legislature didn't already have this authority. Prop 7…

> One thing I'm not clear about is how the state legislature didn't already have this authority. Prop 7 doesn't change the state constitution, just the state Government Code.

The relevant Government Code provision establishing DST was adopted by the voters (not the Legislature on its own) and, therefore, the legislature can't change it unilaterally, only by sending an amending statute to the voters.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#46

Post by spookthesunset »

bitwize wrote: post #36
singingboyo wrote: post #10

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get…

The Japanese don't have DST, despite Japan having a similar latitude span to the lower 48. Somehow, even the kids in northerly Hokkaido manage just fine.

> The Japanese don't have DST

They are in the wrong timezone, in my opinion. The sun sets super early in the day. If I was the dictator of the planet, I'd set japan's clocks forward by two hours year round. Then the sun would set at 18:40 instead of 16:40 today.

Getting off work and having some daylight is pretty important, IMHO. It is quite hard to do in Japan.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#47

Post by recursive »

newnewpdro wrote: post #35

The real problem with the time change is it happens over a single night. When you're actually living in nature, waking up with the sunrise, you will gradually wake up earlier or later as the seasons shift. If our time changed gradually on a more natural pace it would be a whole lot less disruptive and people wouldn't be losing daylight from their lives. We have the technology today to make that happen. If everyone's…

Under this system, either some minutes will be longer than others, or we'll have leap minutes every night. This sounds more complicated, not less.

It might achieve the goal of having a sunrise at the same wall clock time every day, but I don't really see a purpose for that. Sunsets will still vary.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#48

Post by rtkwe »

npunt wrote: post #20
singingboyo wrote: post #10

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get…

Agree, sending kids to school in the dark is a pretty weak 'think of the children' argument. If we REALLY cared about children, we'd start school later as numerous studies show a later start is better for learning and health. See the CDC's guidelines for optimal school start times, which is 8:30am or later: https://www.cdc.gov/features/school-start-times/index.html

Then we start running into issues with the secondary/tertiary purpose of schools, daycare, which lets parents work normal 9-5 jobs more easily while having kids. If schools didn't start to 8:30-9 it'd be harder for parents to get to work.

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#49

Post by sjburt »

downrightmike wrote: post #14
singingboyo wrote: post #10

From [1], which is much better and more on-point, if still short: "Opponents of the proposition argue [...] the sun wouldn’t rise until 8 a.m. during some winter months, forcing children to walk to school or buses in darkness" Maybe school shouldn't start so early then? Starting at 8:30-9 would reduce a lot of that, though not all of it. Also, as a Canadian and Vancouverite... so what? Darkness is a fact of life, get…

Arizona has not been doing daylight savings for years, and they don't have this problem. Really any area with 350+ days of sun shine a year should abandon DLS.

The day length changes less as you get closer to the equator. It's not nearly a big a deal in Tuscon as it is in San Francisco (or Eureka).

Re: In Tuesday's Vote, California Opts for Year-Round Daylight Saving

#50

Post by colejohnson66 »

newnewpdro wrote: post #35

The real problem with the time change is it happens over a single night. When you're actually living in nature, waking up with the sunrise, you will gradually wake up earlier or later as the seasons shift. If our time changed gradually on a more natural pace it would be a whole lot less disruptive and people wouldn't be losing daylight from their lives. We have the technology today to make that happen. If everyone's…

The problem with gradual shifts is that physical clocks are pretty dumb and changing the clock once every 6 months is easier than 4+ changes over the course of a month.
Post reply on HN