I'd definitely choose #3. I don't mind switching, but it's what I'm used to. I'd be OK with dropping it, but if we did, I'd want standard time.
Permanent DST makes no sense to me. Maybe it's my astronomy background, but "noon" means something, something that involves the position of the sun and the earth. We quantize that to timezones for coordination, but it doesn't mean it's meaningless.
If we stop switching, fine, but don't mess with noon. Just change your schedule to 8-4 or whatever. Permanent DST seems like wanting everyone to be above average. Or deciding that everyone would be happier if they're taller, so we're shrinking the foot by 10%.
Most people don't have the privilege of deciding their work hours.
> Permanent DST seems like wanting everyone to be above average.
Not at all. I'd simply rather have more daylight in the evening when I'm awake. To me, any daylight before 10 AM is mostly wasted, as on the weekends, I don't even wake up until 10 or 11 AM. Granted, I do acknowledge how much of an outlier I am.
Simple fact is, most people would rather have the extra daylight in the evening, even if that means that "noon" no longer has the special meaning of "The halfway point between sunrise and sunset" or "The time when the sun is highest in the sky". I'd rather that time be 1 PM.
Permanent DST makes no sense to me. Maybe it's my astronomy background, but "noon" means something, something that involves the position of the sun and the earth. We quantize that to timezones for coordination, but it doesn't mean it's meaningless.
If we stop switching, fine, but don't mess with noon. Just change your schedule to 8-4 or whatever. Permanent DST seems like wanting everyone to be above average. Or deciding that everyone would be happier if they're taller, so we're shrinking the foot by 10%.