No, we should get rid of any shift of the clock, and then set schedules for work and school based on the sun. The start and end times of school and work should change during certain parts of the year if there is concern about daylight.
I understand you feel that way, but that's more or less the purpose and effect of the daylight savings time shift. That's the status quo. It's exactly what many of us want to see eliminated.
No, changing school and work times only changes school and work systems. Changing the entire clock time adds endless complexity to computer systems and society as a whole. It's like global vs local vars, the scope is too much.
Each school and business choosing a different time to change (and half of them choosing not to at all) is far more complex than changing which timezone a specific lat/long translates to twice a year.
Now, I favor never changing the time of each place and keeping on daylight time, but that's just me.
Okay, but most folks who want to change to permanent DST don't care about the effect on computer systems. They want more light in the evening.
Your proposal would not satisfy the primary goal of the proponents of this policy. It would also still require one or more coordinated, discrete shifts in the schedules of schools and workplaces, which would likely be more complicated for computers and other systems than the status quo.
We shouldn't satisfy their goal. It's not their business to impose this on all of society. We should stick to a standard time and let individuals or groups do whatever they need at the local level. Most other countries do this and they are fine. YAGNI. No need for additional complexity.
The status quo is more complex than what the senate has voted for (it requires transitions, the shifting of schedules twice a year, etc.). The new approach is less complex.
The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business. We are going to stick to a standard time after this policy -- it's going to be daylight savings time all the time, although we will probably stop calling it that after we all get used to the policy. Individuals or groups will be equally free to adopt their own schedules both before and after this policy change -- this policy is not a change on that front.
> The assertion that the time is "not someone's business" is incorrect. The time is everyone's business.
You misunderstood my meaning. I understand that everyone is concerned and affected by time. What I meant is it's not in their purview to push such things on the public.
Once again, the rest of the world works perfectly fine without the added complexity, so it should be proven with strong evidence rather than vague arguments that the added complexity is worth it. The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
> it's not in their purview to push such things on the public
It is, in fact, in the purview of the public to change the status quo as it pertains to time. We did it in when daylight savings was established, and we are going to do it again now that we are moving to permanent DST. The status quo affects people who don't like it, and they have every right to try to see it changed. There is no reasonable theory of politics that privileges the status quo to the point you seem to be contemplating.
> The rest of the world works perfectly well without DST.
Maybe we are talking past each other. You say the rest of the world does fine without DST. That's not actually true, most countries do have daylight savings. But you're certainly right that many countries do fine without it. For example it is not observed in South Korea. And after this law passes, so will the United States (i.e. the effect of this law is to abolish daylight savings time, by moving the clock permanently to the DST configuration).
We’ve tried this before 70 years ago and within a year we changed it back. It’s a bad idea and we haven’t had a national discussion about it. Once everyone on the east coast and Midwest sees it’s dark until 8:30AM it will be reversed if it even passes.
It’s a silly idea that once thought out becomes clear.
Okay, then see you in three years when this policy is actually enacted to see if that's how it plays out, and until then there's no need for all of the kvetching.
