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

101–110 of 140 posts

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

#101

Post by bonzini »

ams6110 wrote: post #97
nrb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And since we are at it, let's make women be the SAH parents? Seriously, that would move society 50+ years back. When there were no washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc., maintaining a household was certainly a job for one person, but fortunately we moved past that and, at least in theory, your 46th chromosome does not affect your ability to choose a job anymore.

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

#102

Post by mamon »

ams6110 wrote: post #97
nrb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We had exactly that in 1950s, but then the feminism happened

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

#103

Post by Taniwha »

rtkwe wrote: post #84
Taniwha wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but isn't that what you have to do now, look up what timezone a business is in. The only difference with this scheme is that you don't need to convert between timezones to figure out when they're open in your timeezone I live in the southern hemisphere and 'work' online in the northern - I have to deal with the mess that is 4 different combinations of timezones every year, and calendaring systems that are unable to h…

> but isn't that what you have to do now, look up what timezone a business is in. Not really I know some of our offices are in India UTC +5:30 and some are in Texas UTC -6 which are +11:30 and -1 respectively. With the current setup most timezones follow state boundaries in the US so I know when it is there roughly by the location. In the 'no timezone' setup (which is really just timezones without the top down mappin…

Just setting up meeting times in UTC doesn't work right now if the nominal location of the meeting switches to/from daylight time (the actual UTC time changes)

I think that my solution to timezones simply is "more flexible working hours"

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

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

bluejekyll wrote: post #94
babypuncher wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

No, the feds set the zone boundaries; states can't switch zones without federal action.

There's been some suggestions that it might be easier for a state to get moved to a different zone rather than getting a permanent daylight exception (I think the former may be doable by regulation, while the latter definitely takes Congress.)

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

#105

Post by function_seven »

echevil wrote: post #86
function_seven wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't determine their own schedules. They have to get to work, or class by a specific time. Even independent contractors have to accommodate their clients' schedules.

Companies can decide what schedule makes better sense then. Or if needed, better rules can be established to solve those problems. Even with day light saving, people don't work on the same schedule. Plenty of them need to get up before sun rise or work until late night no matter what the clock says.

People don't work at the same time, but the time they work is determined by other people's schedules. That's why janitors often work in the middle of the night, and school starts before work, and the doughnut guy has to get to the shop early in the morning.

By the way, I would also love to get rid of clock changes twice a year. I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here. The drawbacks of winter morning darkness are real, and will likely not be solved without DST. I just also think that they're not worth screwing with the clock.

If I lived in a more northerly latitude, maybe I'd change my tune. But as it is, I value daylight at 5pm way more than at 7am. The yearly "fall back" of DST is like an insult added to the injury of winter.

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

#106

Post by mark-r »

eridius wrote: post #29

Maybe it's trying to be funny, but this article is the stupidest take on this issue that I've seen.

Yup. Ranting about losing one hour, once? It's either a flat attempt at humor or the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time.

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

#107

Post by sparky_z »

bonzini wrote: post #100
babypuncher wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure which "problem" you're referring to exactly, but I don't think it's the same problem that the supporters of this law are trying to solve.

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

#108

Post by mbreese »

bluejekyll wrote: post #94
babypuncher wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Time zones are set by the DOT, so any change like this likely requires federal action...

https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/procedure-moving-...

Now, not respecting Daylight Savings Time is another matter entirely, and I believe that California could decide to be permanently in PST w/o the approval of the DOT. What they can't do is change the dates for DST or decide to always observe it (which would effectively end up creating a new time zone).

https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/daylight-saving-t...

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

#109

Post by theOneTrueOld »

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.

As a person who works in education, I feel like many decisions are made this way. It's rarely about what is best for the kids.

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

#110

Post by thaumasiotes »

ams6110 wrote: post #97
nrb wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Formerly unpaid? It was paid just as much in the past as it would be in the hypothetical future, in exactly the same way.
Post reply on HN