SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A group of researchers in the UK affiliated with the BSS (British Sleep Society) published a paper this week calling for the permanent abolition of Daylight Saving Time (DST) and adherence to Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), in large part because modern evidence suggests having that extra hour of sunlight in the evenings is worse for our health than we thought back in the 1970s when the concept was all the rage in Europe.
Not only does GMT more closely align with the natural day/light cycle in the UK, the boffins assert, but decades of research into sleep and circadian rhythms have been produced since DST was enacted that have yet to be considered.
The human circadian rhythm, the 24-hour cycle our bodies go through, drives a lot about our health beyond sleep. It regulates hormone release, gene expression, metabolism, mood (who isn't grumpier when waking up in January?), and the like. In short, it's important. Messing with that rhythm by forcing ourselves out of bed earlier for several months out of the year can have lasting effects, the researchers said.
According to their review of recent research, having light trigger our circadian rhythms in the mornings to wake us up is far more important than an extra hour of light in the evenings. In fact, contrary to the belief that an extra hour of light in the evenings is beneficial, it might actually cause health problems by, again, mucking about with the human body's understanding of what time it is and how we ought to feel about it.
"Disruption of the daily synchronization of our body clocks causes disturbances in our physiology and behavior … which leads to negative short and long-term physical and mental health outcomes," the authors said.
That, and we've just plain fooled ourselves into thinking it benefits us in any real way.
[...] And for the love of sleep, the researchers beg, don't spring forward permanently.
"Mornings are the time when our body clocks have the greatest need for light to stay in sync," said Dr Megan Crawford, lead author and senior lecturer in psychology at University of Strathclyde. "At our latitudes there is simply no spare daylight to save during the winter months and given the choice between natural light in the morning and natural light in the afternoon, the scientific evidence favors light in the morning."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday October 30, @04:37PM (7 children)
For the US, it doesn't matter how many states pass legislation on thin, Congress has to sign off on it. Maybe if the rest of the fucking world does it, the US House will get off their fat asses and actually does something other than put on a clown show.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @04:52PM
The same year the US goes metric.
because, SCIENCE
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @05:26PM (4 children)
Not exactly. Before '66 it was a state level issue, and apparently, it was chaos. In '66 the federal law become either do standard time year around or implement federal DST under strict federal rules, states choice of those two precise options.
To this day, since 1966, any state legislature can simply pass a law saying no more DST and they will remain in standard time permanently. I would like that in my state.
What does require federal action is it's not legal to implement year-around DST under the '66 federal law. Some states are trying to do it despite lack of federal approval. Of all the odd situations, the DOT is in charge of time, not NIST or something else. Some people have tried to change the '66 law, completely unsuccessfully.
I can see the justification for year around DST in the sense that we're only on "Standard" time for about 4 months of the year and "DST" for 8 months, roughly.
A lot of the social engineering has been ineffective. Originally DST was extended into November to sell more candy because Halloween trick or treat will have more sunlight and in theory that might bring more kids. Naturally, my local community responded by time shifting trick or treat to later in the night so its dark again LOL. So the feds only got a couple years of "more sunlight".
The death of the 9-5 and the 9-5 commute seem to have generated a lot of motivation to get rid of DST. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.
I think the main problem with "fixing" DST is there's no way to make campaign donations off the usual divide and conquer and scaremonger. Politicians make more money per hour off the usual nonsense than by fixing actual problems permanently, so don't expect this to be fixed any time soon.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday October 30, @05:44PM (2 children)
Not complete bullshit, but factually not the main reason for the extension.
~ from the totally reliable source "History.com [archive.org]"...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @06:59PM (1 child)
Fair enough, the golf courses have an obvious direct financial revenue interest, whereas the "National Confectioners Association" is slightly more indirect although still has an interest.
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Wednesday October 30, @08:30PM
But really, these industries are piggy backing on the actual reason which was oil consumption and agriculture production, both areas where this one hour difference is now (and has been for many many years) irrelevant.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Wednesday October 30, @07:50PM
Interesting idea. That's a bit like pharmaceutical companies making more money from people staying ill and taking pills for life rather than getting cured, or even media magnates profiting from (coverage of) global chaos [wikipedia.org].
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 30, @05:52PM
>And for the love of sleep, the researchers beg, don't spring forward permanently.
Good luck getting DeSantis to listen for Florida, where more light in the evenings means more tourist spending hours in the shops, restaurants, theme parks, etc.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Username on Wednesday October 30, @04:40PM
Is make people late for work.
Nobody in the modern age buys property just for 9-5 employees. Everything is 24/7.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday October 30, @04:59PM (1 child)
⠀
Santa maintains a database and does double verification of it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by krishnoid on Wednesday October 30, @06:46PM
I mean if you believe this guy (long-time sleep researcher, apparently), it's a strong correlation that it's dramatically wounding and/or killing us [youtu.be].
The whole episode is *really* good; I ended up re-listening to it 6 times despite myself and found it very educational (assuming this is guy is legitimate and what he's saying is actually based on real research).
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @05:37PM (3 children)
See also the insane stats for Vit D deficiency in NHANES studies etc.
Just a few minutes a day of sunlight will catalyse enough vit D you don't need to suntan.
Generally you can tell if someone's giving you meme advice or they have read medical journal articles by asking if people in general need to take vit D supplements. If they are sticking to useless meme advice you'll get the usual nonsense about "nobody needs supplements just eat a balanced diet (WTF that is)". If they read medical journal articles you'll get a lecture about how survey results indicate modern peeps pretty much universally need vit D pills.
I suppose it should be obvious that if "we" at least in the USA, wear more clothes and spend more time indoors and live further north than "we" did 200K years ago, maybe even 20K years ago, that we'd need at least some intentional sunlight or start popping vit D pills.
If you want to learn how things work in the medical industrial complex, look into vitamin D. National health care policy is pretty much "There's no way to make huge profits off a vitamin so let them suffer." Its also crazy to compare the results of scientists in medical journals to meme advice from social media, they're polar opposites.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 30, @05:58PM (2 children)
>wear more clothes and spend more time indoors and live further north than "we" did 200K years ago, maybe even 20K years ago
For people north of lat 45, yeah - there are some concerns up there in the winter, and not so many people have ever lived the Eskimo lifestyle.
As for history, if you go back even 100 years, people spent much more time outdoors, not only working in the fields, walking instead of driving, but also because air conditioning wasn't a thing.
Since the advent of "energy efficient buildings" (which actually consume FAR more energy than buildings without refrigerant based air conditioning), there are a significant number of people that are approaching zero hours of actual sunlight exposure per day, never opening their UV blocking windows, etc. That's where the insanity lies: never ever exposing your skin to full sunlight and expecting that it's not going to have significant consequences.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @06:55PM (1 child)
Also don't forget high SPF sunscreens.
Medically true as I understand it that you only need perhaps "ten" minutes to catalyze enough vitamin D to avoid illness symptoms under ideal conditions, but if people slather on mysterious compounds claiming a SPF of 15, then they would need to sit outside for 2.5 hours. Still, I'm a busy dude, I'd rather sit outside a couple of minutes and then do what I want, rather than burn half the day.
Optimum health is not necessarily coincident with minimum level necessary to avoid immediate deficiency symptoms, so there's that too. Much like optimal water consumption level is not "just barely enough to avoid immediate short term death"
The CDC's NHANES study is wild and interesting and I've been following it for decades (its annual for at least some decades now IIRC). They basically pick 5000 to 10000 randos and do a complete labwork on them and then make endless statistical reports. Like a really detailed census, but medically oriented. Pretty cool stuff gets reported. Almost all medical research is done solely to sell an expensive new pill, but at least NHANES does basic research and is like F-it we're going to measure everyone's ferritin levels and just send it and see what happens when they crunch the numbers. IIRC the result was something like 1 in 5 chicks has medically clinically low blood ferritin levels in the USA. Kind of F'd up if you think about it that 1 in 5 chicks you see out there on the street are at least somewhat sick, but not as messed up as the Vit D test results which IIRC were absolutely awful.
The "good" news about 1 in 5 chicks having clinically low ferritin levels is there's a huge number of symptoms so they can treat the symptoms with expensive pills individually instead of treating the cause. Or.. they could eat a better diet... nah F that push them pills to get them profits. Shitty USA medical system...
I think the only way to live a healthy lifestyle in the USA is to knock out some college o-chem classes and learn to read medical journal articles directly because everyone else is pushing some kind of financial scheme, not trying to make people healthy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 30, @07:14PM
> CDC's NHANES study
See, I would expect that national health programs would really get into stuff like that, actually treating problems and getting costs down - not to mention improving health before it's a problem requiring treatment.
Our family recently experienced a horrific episode of having our son handled like a funding source to be optimized (group home...) Not only is it inhumane to "the client", it makes a bunch of unhappy employees running the scam too.
In Capitalist healthcare, YOU are the income source to be squeezed for maximum profit. The longer I live (and work in the medical device industry) the more I come to the conclusion: The only way to win is not to play. Avoid medical "care" at every possible opportunity. Too bad they actually do improve outcomes with early detection, sometimes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @06:19PM (5 children)
Will it fix their teeth?
(Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @07:06PM
Insane as it probably sounds, the answer seems to be "yes", if they get more sunlight exposure by having more sunlight in the morning.
It's plausible with modern urban/suburban lifestyles that they'd get more sunlight on their skin from no DST than from DST, although possibly in rural more outdoors area they'd get more sunlight exposure with DST.
I would imagine the effect is rather small, but with vitamin D levels being as critically low as they are across the population, it might show up in the statistics.
https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/threats-to-dental-health/vitamin-d-and-the-effects-it-has-on-your-oral-health [colgate.com]
I think not adding a shitload of sugar to their tea would help more. I drink my tea black.
(Score: 5, Informative) by turgid on Wednesday October 30, @09:07PM (3 children)
It's impossible to see a dentist these days unless you are rich.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 31, @01:30PM (2 children)
U.S. dentists have been overselling services for my entire lifetime:
https://www.consumerreports.org/dental-oral-care/read-this-before-your-next-trip-to-the-dentist-a5054427914/ [consumerreports.org]
I'm cynical, but 4/5 dentists I have had in my lifetime push a bunch of un-necessary procedures on their patients, procedures that end up giving dentists more work in the future more often than conferring any tangible benefits to the patients.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday October 31, @02:06PM (1 child)
Ours have started doing that too. For example, my last dentist told me I had perfect 10/10 oral hygiene, the best she'd seen and I wouldn't need to see the Dental Hygienist, saving myself £40.
She retired and we got a new private dentist. Once again he congratulated me on my perfect oral hygiene but insisted I have the scale and polish anyway for £60.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 31, @02:41PM
The clue on this side of the pond was when they moved from annual cleanings to mostly recommending two cleanings a year, some of the greedier ones started recommending three.
I saw an article that attributed it in part to the success of fluoridation at reducing caries (cavities to drill and fill) and other improvements in oral hygiene, awareness of sugar-rot, etc. Some dentists started drilling and filling things that they never would have touched in the past. In the 1970s, when my parents got dental insurance for the first time through their work, the same dentist that had been not drilling on us for 4 years prior suddenly "found" two to 4 cavities in each and every family member, but don't worry, your copay is minimal, let's take care of these right away. My two were so minor that I didn't need any of the local anesthesia that they normally gave - I expect insurance was billed for it anyway, but that stuff costs money - best not to waste it on indentations so minor they probably should never have been drilled in the first place, much less packed with mercury amalgam.
Others branched out into whatever products they could hawk - I had one try to sell me a $400 custom bite plate - first clue: not covered by insurance - to sleep with so I wouldn't "destroy my teeth" grinding them in the night. That was over 30 years ago, haven't destroyed my teeth yet. Deep scale cleaning services, covered by insurance, were one my wife agreed to that I didn't. She has had 4 root canal crowns since then, I haven't even had a cavity filled. They did something crazy filling in the gumline recession gaps to her that I also declined - that caused her nothing but grief in the 5 years after that was done, they finally all chipped out and she's back to normal receding gums like the rest of us instead of the mess that those gap fillers created.
There wasn't much that I did like about the last town I lived in, but we did have a good dentist there. Sensible advice, no-nonsense cleanings, no oversell of services. We moved 11 years ago, I believe I tried 3 dentists in this town before giving up in despair, it has been at least 7 years since I have even gone for a cleaning. I started using something like this: https://www.amazon.com/Philips-Sonicare-Toothbrush-Rechargeable-HX3681/dp/B09LD8T445 [amazon.com] with regular toothpaste, it's not quite the same as a good scraping with metal tools by a hygienist, but I just don't feel like going and listening to a "professional" give me scare stories about how all my teeth are going to start rotting and falling out any day if I don't get on twice a year cleanings and hard-sell additional services rotation right away.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday October 30, @07:00PM
Just the other day, I read why Daylight Savings Time was extended past Halloween. Seems candy manufacturers believe that DST allows more trick-or-treating, which boosts their sales.
I wonder if the day will ever come that such messed up, anti-social reasoning will go nowhere.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @07:04PM
Abolish the clock!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday October 30, @07:08PM (2 children)
This one comes up every year, like clockwork. It's not hard. It's even less problematic these days as you don't have to go around your flat/house and move all the clocks forwards or backwards depending on which time of the year it is. Computers, phones etc all adjust themselves unless you have for some reason changed the default setting.
For some parts of the world it might not matter and it all seems like a big pain. But if you live up north in the world getting that one extra hour of sunlight or daylight kind helps. Sure they could just wake up on their own an hour earlier but then it would be weird cause society in general wouldn't start earlier if you didn't change the clocks. Or it would be equality weird then to remember that all the stores and services have changed their opening hours by one hour.
If you live along the equator or some place middle of the earth then sure this is probably a big pain for you. Or weird. Or you don't see the point of it. But to the rest of us it matters.
(Score: 3, Touché) by chucky on Wednesday October 30, @08:40PM (1 child)
If you live north enough, the night starts on September 23rd and ends on March 21st. One hour more or less doesn’t matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @09:23PM
Indeed. Spend some time inside the arctic circle. Half the year it's almost eternal night, the sun barely manage to get above the horizon. Or it's light at all hours and you wish for darkness.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday October 30, @09:13PM (7 children)
As a naturally lazy person, I hate it when the clocks go forward in the spring and I have to get up an hour earlier. It makes me grumpy all the way through to the end of October when I am happy to get an extra hour in bed one Sunday morning and I can get up at a reasonable time. I believe DST was invented during World War I to get more productivity out of farmers and factory workers. They also brought in the licensing laws to make pubs close at a "reasonable time" (it was 10pm in England until comparatively recently) so that the workers wouldn't stay up until all hours getting legless. The thing is, if you are a farmer, you have to get up and attend to your animals at whatever time of day they're awake (which is synchronised to the Sun) and when there's daylight for attending to crops. I don't suppose making 4 o'clock in the morning into 5 o'clock makes any difference. You would still have to get up if it were called 4 o'clock.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by corey on Wednesday October 30, @09:25PM (4 children)
I like it. I live on a rural property but my work is on the computer. So having extra daylight means I can go out after dinner and get stuff done when I’m not expected to work. Otherwise I spend all my daylight hours inside on the computer. Then when finished and it’s time to do what I want, it’s dark and cold outside.
But i know it’s each to their own.
Of course if you’re going to ask the British Sleep Society for their opinion, they’re going to bag out daylight savings time.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday October 31, @12:45AM (3 children)
As well they should, daylight saving time is absolutely horrible. Sure, once a year you get an extra hour of sleep, but another time you lose an hour of sleep. And, there really is no upside to it. The US already tried permanent DST, and it was horrible, so I really don't understand why states are trying to push DST as the standard rather than standard time that's closer to what the sun says time is.
Perhaps in the past there may have been some upside, but people can be up all night long with their computers and various jobs, changing the clocks doesn't actually save any energy these days, it's just a massive pain.
(Score: 2) by owl on Thursday October 31, @02:16AM (2 children)
Because those politicians were not around when we tried permanent DST and don't intuitively "get" the downsides. They just see it as "why not have an extra hour of daylight every evening of every day of the year?".
One winter on DST and they will wise up fast.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday October 31, @03:25AM (1 child)
If last time is any indication, we'll put up with that hell for one year, before all the states adopt permanent standard time. Then again, we have a lot of niceties now that they didn't last time they tried, so it's not quite a sure thing. My money is on one hellish winter before the matter resolves to permanent standard time though.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by owl on Thursday October 31, @09:52PM
That's my belief as well. The idiot politicians will go the "DST year round" route thinking the "extra hour in evening" is a good thing.
Then, one winter season on DST will rapidly have the pitchforks and torches out for those same politicians such that the actual settlement (assuming they settle on dropping the "changing twice a year" in the first place) will end up being on "standard time" year round.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 31, @09:29PM (1 child)
For a while now it hasn't mattered, as all the equipment have lights on them so they can run at night if needed. Buildings with animals in them are all lighted as well. DST hasn't mattered to a farmer for a long time already.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by owl on Friday November 01, @01:06AM
DST never mattered to a farmer, ever. If the farmer raises animals, those animals have zero idea what "time" it is on the clock and instead need their appropriate tending when its needed, no matter what the big and little hand on the clock face say. I.e., the cows need to be milked when they need to be milked, and the cows can't tell time.
If the farmer raises plants, those plants also can't tell time, and if the farmer wants to maximize his/her illumination during the day for harvest, they are getting up at dawn, no matter where on the clock dial dawn happens to fall due to government decree.
The 'farmer' excuse for DST was always just that, an excuse told to non-farmers (city folk) if they grumbled about DST. Since 99.999% of the city folk would never set foot on a farm, they had no basis to question the narrative they were being fed.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mykl on Wednesday October 30, @10:54PM (3 children)
I find it strange that this group is claiming such severe adverse health effects from following Daylight Saving. Most of us recognise that we get an 'extra' hour of sunlight in the evenings, but that's not the original purpose.
Prior to the Industrial Era (i.e. all of human history minus about 200 years), accurate timekeeping was a curiosity. Most people got up at dawn and went to bed when it was dark. In winter that would mean waking up later and going to bed earlier, and in summer it would mean waking up earlier and going to bed later (depending on how far away from the Equator you live, the number of 'waking hours' of pre-industrial people could vary dramatically between Summer and Winter).
Once we started waking to the clock, our body rhythms started changing significantly. Nowadays it might be possible to get up before dawn in winter, but an hour or more after dawn in summer. Curtains and blinds were needed to help us sleep according to clock time and not daylight hours, but they're not 100% effective at fooling your body (you can still hear birds chirp, some light comes through etc).
Enforcing Daylight Savings in summer actually brings your clock (and your waking time) back 1 hour closer to dawn than it otherwise would be - in effect putting you closer to the natural pre-Industrial Era rhythm. The side effect of that is more light in the evening.
So, how does helping to align our waking cycle closer to the natural rhythm of daylight create such health issues? You'd have to ask the BSS I guess.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday October 31, @12:47AM (1 child)
An extra hour is meaningless when that hour is spent on your commute. I'd rather have that hour in the morning when the light is more valuable than in the afternoon when I'm already awake. Around here, it doesn't matter whether you shift the hour ahead or back, you're going to spend nearly all the available daylight while you're at work either way, but at least without daylight saving time, you don't get that interruption to the sleep patterns that comes with trying to move light around.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday October 31, @03:30AM
I think there are many factors, such as whether you're a "morning person" or evening / night owl, what your interests are, what your daylight needs are, and where you live in your timezone. I will always wish for more light later in the day. I have much outdoor work to do, including lawn mowing, leaf collection, etc. Even if I was a morning person, not only would my neighbors hate me and call the police, but it's against township rules to make noise before 8 AM.
Public parks and trails officially close at sunset, so again, if you want to do outdoor recreation but you work full-time, the clock change will cut off much of that activity. Yes, some people are morning people and do those things early. But not everyone is.
Also, I'm on the eastern size of my timezone, so I'm already getting less light later in the day.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday October 31, @12:21PM
Mostly because too many people have bosses that will blow their stack if they come in 5 minutes late. So rather than adjusting the sleep/wake cycle over a span of 4 months, it must be done overnight (literally).
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Thursday October 31, @09:32AM
I believe that the switch between DST and standard is bad. Other than that, color me skeptical. Having time zones, means that effectively many people already adhere to standard time (on the east rim) and others do more extreme DST. Using this setting it would be possible to draw causal conclusions, however, AFAIK this has never been researched. What I otherwise read (admittedly in secondary literature), contains a lot of non-sequiturs and wishful thinking.
Give me my DST year-round.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Thursday October 31, @11:55AM (1 child)
It seems people are either unaware or have forgotten - the entire country of China is on one time zone. For most of its citizens, the clock is just a reference point, unrelated to solar time.
If you don't like DST, just leave your clock where it is and adjust accordingly. I know a few Luddites who actually do this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01, @04:17AM
"The kids would go to school in the dark"
Yeah, change the time they start school, dumbasses. I don't get it either. The only reason we even have time zones is because of the railroads. We don't need that now. You can sync trains and planes on UTC, and require people to be at work or school at a particular time based off that.
Whatever we do, no more semi-annual jet lag. It's foolish.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by clive_p on Thursday October 31, @12:26PM (3 children)
Here in the UK we tried this as an experiment in the 1960s. The problem is that in mid-winter there isn't enough daylight to both go to work in the light and come home in the light. Most people have work/school/college days which start around 9am so they could go to work in the light, even though it was unavoidably dark at leaving-off time. But with permanent summer-time a whole lot of people discovered that they were in the dark both going to work and also going home. This was unpleasant and not popular. Popular pressure forced the experiment to be abandoned without becoming permanent so ever since we have had Summer Time only in the summer. I agree that putting clocks back and forward is a nuisance, but I still feel that the alternatives are worse.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 31, @01:34PM
9 to 5 is already imbalanced around noon.
For many years, I worked 10 to 6, just because nobody missed me much 9 to 10, and I got much more done 5 to 6 than I did the rest of the day when people were bugging me. Also, living in Miami, early sundown wasn't too much of an issue most of the year.
Now I work from home, available for consultation roughly 8 to 6, but most days I average an hour of consultation time per day and I can actually focus the rest of the time.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Troll) by Dr Spin on Thursday October 31, @01:53PM
I live in London, and AFAICR, in midwinter, it gets light around 10AM and dark around 4PM, while in Summer it gets light around 5AM and dark around 10PM,
so DST benefits school children coming home for about 3 weeks, twice a year, maybe. Farmers are more concerned with the sun than the clock.
These are the two groups it would allegedly help, although I was told by my dad that the real reason was to discourage workers from going to the pub after work during WW1.
I doubt it would have had much impact on them either - in the pub, you don't care what it is like outside (so I have heard).
Its well known it screws up everyone else, leading to ill health, accidents on the roads and at work, people being early or late for church on the Sunday when the
change is made, and for work for several weeks after as their biological clock is screwed.
I would say DST probably counts as a crime against humanity - likely causing more deaths than terrorists.
Also the American rules are different from European rules, causing webinars to be missed (or at least being used as an excuse to avoid Zoom calls).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Thursday October 31, @03:51PM
The solution of messing with a nations clocks a couple times per year seems wildly overcomplicated compared to merely changing posted hour one time permanently to make everyone permanently "happy" or "happier" anyway.
If the sun rises at X o'clock where you live and you want to drive to work in the sun just change the required arrival time to around (X+1) o'clock. It seems shockingly simple once pointed out...
I have talked to old people and some in that generation had a numerical fixation on precisely 9-5. If the government defined "9" as local midnight those old timers would get up at midnight and grumble but certainly never do anything to change the problem of having to wake up at local midnight, because that's a "9" and that specific numeral all that matters. Like the gag from the movie "spinal tap" where all that matters is their amplifier has a dial that goes up to "11". I don't really care on some kind of numerological astrological plane if the number on a schedule or project plan is 8-7 or 10-9 or 10-6 or whatever. I mean I'd like to know ahead of time and there's scheduling issues and five 8s vs four 10s, etc, but I have no numerological worship of the "9", so I don't care personally.
I've been thinking about the paragraph above and this might just be one of those things where once the WWII and baby boomer generations die off the younger generations will scrap daylight savings time without a care. As a member of the younger generations, I work on the opposite side of the planet but for uninteresting reasons, I used to start work at 1000 UTC. Nothing horrible happened because I went to work around "10 UTC" instead of "9". Well during non-DST it was not 1000 UTC but you know what I mean. It was pretty darn early in my local time zone, being on the opposite side of the planet from UTC, but that's what I needed in life at that time.