If that bothers you, you simply aren't wearing proper clothing. The difference between a refreshing chill and a harrowing cold can just be an extra sweater under your coat and a good attitude. As long as it isn't very windy, it's easy to make 14 comfortable.
As someone who lives in Minnesota (and has lived in the upper Midwest for the last 14 years)... no, it's not just "proper clothing ...and a good attitude."
Below a certain temperature, it hurts to be outside for any nontrivial amount of time. That is a strong disincentive to go outside, no matter how many sweaters you're wearing.
How is that even an argument? Does someone really argue that getting them up early is good for them? Especially for high school kids (maybe 14-18 ish?). No one could possibly think that sending them to a school that starts at 7am is any way good for them. In our distract the high school starts at 7am and the small kids start at 9am. This makes no sense to me at all. (I'm not a kid complaining, I'm a parent)
Yes, a lot of people like to argue that getting up early is good for everyone, kids and adults. It's silly, but the "early bird catches the worm" people seem to run the world.
If the early bird people run the world, isn't that proof enough that it is good to be an early bird?
I think it's because people think "morning person" is the default, and correct, way of being. And that not being a morning person makes you odd or lazy. So when someone comes in challenging late-friendly scheduling, they're assumed to be the correct one, and that the workplace has somehow been in error by allowing later schedules.
It's the Ben Franklin Poor Richard's Almanac thing: "Early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." He was also the buttmunch that gave us daylight savings time.
Context is important. You should read about why those two (completely unrelated) things came about when they did.
For example, there was a period of history where it was much safer to drink beer all day instead of water. Without context, that sounds like a really bad idea.
I live in a region where winter days are very short. I go to work and it's dark, I leave work and it's dark. I don't understand why we have decided to go sit in buildings during daylight hours. Even with a 40-hour week, I would love if the work day was shifted to allow one to get sunlight for a few hours each day.
This is predicated on the idea that you're only really productive in the afternoon, and that the morning is just wasted time. I'm most productive in the mornings, and my productivity only takes a dive in the afternoon because that's when all my meetings are. Turns out, anecdotes about an individual's workflow aren't broadly generalizable!
I agree that the ideas aren't necessarily generalizable, but what if we shifted to an idea that people's individual schedules reflect when they specifically are most productive. Someone else who replied said they were most productive in the morning. Great! Let them have and earlier start time. For me, I'm completely useless in the morning. Sure, I can be in the office at 8:00am, but you're not getting any meaningful…
It turns out there are people who literally believe that having multiple people in a room is 'productive' even when there is no agenda, no goal and no fucking point to doing so. So that kind of person sees 'being at the office at the same time as other people' as a goal in itself.
But DST is in summer , isn't it? At least that is what I have been told: In summer, days are so long and start so early that we might as well move the whole day back by an hour, so get up early, finish work early and still have a couple of hours of daylight left. Full disclosure: I am not a fan of DST, but I do not expect the current situation to change. In Europe, almost(?) all countries use it, so if just Germany (…
> if DST was to go, all countries would have to drop it simultaneously, or else the resulting patchwork would be too much of a pain There are already countless exceptions to DST and people seem to be doing fine. E.g. in Australia there are two regions in the same time zone where only one has DST, meaning they are out of sync for half the year.
It's a source of constant complaints, massive costs and is totally bloody stupid, assuming you're talking about the NSW/QLD border.
I live in a region where winter days are very short. I go to work and it's dark, I leave work and it's dark. I don't understand why we have decided to go sit in buildings during daylight hours. Even with a 40-hour week, I would love if the work day was shifted to allow one to get sunlight for a few hours each day.
> I live in a region where winter days are very short. I go to work and it's dark, I leave work and it's dark. I have had that experience for years. It can be quite disheartening to see the sun set while you are on your way home. I do not mind the cold in the winter, but the darkness can literally be depressing. Last year, after some health issues, my boss surprised me (in a good way), when he offered me to reduce my…
I have had that experience for years. It can be quite disheartening to see
the sun set while you are on your way home.
Try watching the sun set from work, then glancing at the clock and seeing that you won't leave for another hour
It's the Ben Franklin Poor Richard's Almanac thing: "Early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise." He was also the buttmunch that gave us daylight savings time.
I used to be really against DST, but honestly, it's the only thing that actually lets me see the damn sun at all in the winter, so now I'm a fan.
As someone who lives in Arizona myself, it is a bit strange to have (virtually) the rest of the world change their clocks without us... makes scheduling remote meetings difficult, if nothing else. (On the other hand, we don't have to worry about changing our clocks in the first place, so there's that?)
For some extra fun, the Navajo Nation observes DST, and they're _inside_ Arizona.
>In our distract the high school starts at 7am and the small kids start at 9am. This makes no sense to me at all. (I'm not a kid complaining, I'm a parent) I was always under the impression this staggered start rate among school tiers was because they all share the same buses. If they all started at the same time they would need ~3x as many buses and bus drivers.
It would make a lot more sense to have the small kids start at 7 and the high school start at 9. Elementary school kids are naturally larks while teenagers are notorious owls.
It would, but people start panicking because they don't want their six year old standing alone on a deserted street corner in the dark waiting for a school bus. Seattle changed it to do that last year, but honestly what the fuck makes sense about a 7am school start time for anyone? In Australia I didn't know anyone who started school before 8.30am, ever. And that start time was basically consistent for 12 years of schooling, public, private, elementary, high school, whatever. It is like discovering aliens to see how the US school system is arranged.
Perhaps "morning person" is the default because many people have families and children and whether or not they operate best in the morning or evening, they are forced to operate in the morning because that's when school time is scheduled (the children are at school) and the children are home in the evening (default family time). I'm wishing that someday we can get to more flexible schooling hours. I think if we want…
Schooling is definitely a major issue. My nephew has to be at school by 7:15 am. It’s absolutley asinine to believe that pre-teens and teens can be functional or able to actually learn anything at such an hour. Not to mention the fact that every school is different. His younger brother, for example doesn’t start school until nearl 9:00. And this is an elementary and a high school in the same district. It’s insane. So…
This is slowly changing. Here in Seattle we just went through a major shift where (most) public elementary schools start early, and the middle/highschool kids shift later.