James Lankford cites a veteran as partial reason for recommitting to Sunshine Protection Act, which has already passed in Senate
Archived version: https://archive.ph/QhlaG
James Lankford cites a veteran as partial reason for recommitting to Sunshine Protection Act, which has already passed in Senate
Archived version: https://archive.ph/QhlaG
End or make permanent, the effect is basically the same in terms of convenience.
Standard time is better for health (and makes more sense from a practical standpoint)
Any arguments about sunlight, etc, are all nonsense because all you have to do is change your schedule if you insist on that
Standard time in which time zone? Since each zone is (typically) one hour off from the one next to it, then the people in the timezone to the east of yours are essentially on daylight time relative to you.
I could see an argument that sunlight is involved since sunrise times vary by latitude and longitude, but I’m told sunlight arguments are nonsense…
I’ve seen this take a few times now and it just doesn’t make sense to me. Either sunlight matters or it does not, and if it does, time zones seem too broad to adequately match sun positions. (E.g sunrise can be an hour apart on each side of a time zone)
Standard time = 12:00 at local solar noon (usually in the center of the zone)
We need sunlight in the morning more than in the evening. This is why DST in winters is terrible if people would stick to current schedules.
Slowly moving schedules and keeping standard time would be better if people care about evening sunlight. Or even better, move to 6 hour workdays and give everybody more sunlight both in the morning and evening!
That still puts the fringes of a timezone possibly 30 minutes off from the ideal, and that is only the east/west direction. Places further from the equator are more susceptible to seasonal light changes.
Really I think time zones themselves are the problem. Prior to that each locality could adopt a time that worked best for them (horrible for trains and probably not compatible with modern communications tech, but easier on the people.) DST is a problematic patch on a problematic system.
Personally I’d like to see UTC adopted more broadly, at least for travel. Flying to NYC to LA takes 6.5 hours but you gain three hours due to time changes making it effectively 3.5 hours. Whereas flying back takes 5.5 hours but loses 3 to make it 8.5 hours. While I understand that intellectually, I find it hard to grasp intuitively. Just give me UTC and a relative time. Say 1900 (noon) or 1600 (mid morning)
It would also help with people living on either side of a timezone. Just say let’s meet at the restaurant at 500 instead of having to specify a timezone. Doubly so for coordinating online meetings with people around the country.
Fair. I just meant that most people are upset at the frequent changing, not the pros and cons of each option.
I would loathe permanent DST.
I work construction and for the past decade or so the General Contractors have only been paying the electricians to install “life safety” lighting. Basically, it’s enough light to navigate the hallways and especially the stairways. We are on our own to light any other areas. This is why nearly all construction workers now wear headlamps, it’s dark as shit in most of the site.
So, we just had the DST change obviously and now I have to use my headlamp for about an hour every morning even if I’m next to a window. The latest sunrise in Denver would be something like 0815 if we were on permanent DST. That’s two full hours every morning for at least a week stumbling around with a damn headlamp.
Detroit’s latest sunrise would be 0850, I think. That’s insanity. I feel for the people that are stuck in the 8-5 office grind and want to walk their dog after work but damn it would be a huge PITA for anyone who works at 0600. I don’t know if I could take it.