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

91–100 of 140 posts

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

#91

Post by pacificmint »

spookthesunset wrote: post #46
bitwize wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is an interesting map[1] that shows how much the time is off in each location in the world vs solar time.

Japan is indeed ahead of solar time, as opposed to many other places on their longitude. (Though perhaps not by two hours).

Interestingly, many more places are behind their solar time then places that are ahead of it.

[1] http://blog.poormansmath.net/how-much-is-time-wrong-around-t...

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

#92

Post by madcaptenor »

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…

William Willett, who was a promoter of DST in Britain, proposed advancing the clock by twenty minutes on four Sundays in April and taking it back twenty minutes on four Sundays in September (http://www.webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/willett.html), sort of a compromise between continuous adjustment and the one-shot that we have now.

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

#93

Post by leetcrew »

logfromblammo wrote: post #81
rtkwe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no particular reason work should start so early, either, other than the perpetual punctuality pogrom promulgated by lark against owl.

idk about you, but I get to pick my hours, as long as they add up to forty. even with this freedom (and being a night owl), I find myself wanting to get to work by 9:00 anyway. any later and I just get home too late in the evening. if anything, I sometimes try to get to work half an hour to an hour early. I can't imagine there are too many parents who want to shift their schedule to get home even later.

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

#94

Post by bluejekyll »

babypuncher wrote: post #66
dragonwriter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 7 was submitted to voters by the legislature, since they couldn't do what they wanted without permission from the voters, because the law setting DST policy was from the voters, not the legislature. Of course, federal action is still needed, too.

Federal action is only needed if they choose to go with PDT year-round rather than PST.

IANAL, but, I think they could also choose MST as a replacement without federal action (from some other comments I've read on the matter)

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

#95

Post by gnicholas »

LitFan wrote: post #67
rtkwe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not to mention teachers not wanting to work until 5:30 every day. Unfortunately, school starts at the time it does only to the benefit of adults, and the detriment of students.

IIRC, the teacher's union was one of the primary reasons that the recent bill that would have shifted school start times later was defeated.

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

#96

Post by kenneth »

The annoying thing about this proposition is that it proposes allowing the legislature to attempt to move to permanent PDT… which requires changing our timezone, something which requires an action from federal congress. If we had simply chosen to go to permanent PST, we could stay in the summer time zone and make the change without involving congress since it doesn't require changing timezone.

Personally, I'd much prefer PST over PDT, which gives us sunlight later into the day.

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

#97

Post by ams6110 »

nrb wrote: post #55
rtkwe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe rethinking 9-5 is more productive to society than forcing everything else around it. Lots of schools start each day in the 7:00 hour.

Maybe rethinking both parents working is more productive to society.

If the expectation was that one parent cared for the children and the household, that would drastically shrink the supply of workers, and force wages up, recognizing the actual, formerly unpaid cost of maintaining a household and raising children.

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

#98

Post by hirundo »

mullingitover wrote: post #53
rtkwe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And there's the real issue. Not about what's best for the kids, but what's convenient for the parents.

If the parents can't get to work by 9, don't you think their more limited job options could have a real effect on their kids?

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

#99

Post by tempestn »

_ph_ wrote: post #68
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…

What is the point of moving the time zone by 1 hour (keeping permanent DST instead of normal time) and then adjusting times, like school hours, to compensate for it? Couldn't one just go back to normal time instead?

Only if literally everything adjusts to compensate. People proposing a permanent move to daylight savings time with some things moving to compensate are expecting the majority of things to keep happening at the same clock time (resulting in advantages like more evening sunlight).

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

#100

Post by bonzini »

babypuncher wrote: post #66
dragonwriter wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 7 was submitted to voters by the legislature, since they couldn't do what they wanted without permission from the voters, because the law setting DST policy was from the voters, not the legislature. Of course, federal action is still needed, too.

Federal action is only needed if they choose to go with PDT year-round rather than PST.

But that wouldn't make sense, as it would put California four hours behind EDT during the summer, adding to the problem rather than removing.
Post reply on HN