This seems needlessly argumentative. You might as well argue that since one town has an infinitesimal difference in the reading of its sundial, time is a meaningless concept. Most of us, I think, are trying to find a solution that, while imperfect for everyone, is most useful for most people. The approximation that “noon” is a definite and clear concept for 12 o’clock seems like a very good place to start. Accepting that as true, coupled with the notion that daylight is scarcer in winter and more plentiful in summer, leads to a simple solution.
These are sports-lighting controllers (baseball, football, soccer fields, etc.)
Not having a photocell is a selling feature, since they often fail due to birds nesting or dust. The software I wrote is flexible enough to handle this situation, it’s just a hassle having to upgrade loads of units.
I put a poll in the “Polls Only” thread:
You realize that there are multiple factors in question here: economics, employer-employee relationships, scheduling of public and private services (like schools and day care and dry cleaning, among others), public safety, the fact that population centers often cross (arbitrarily defined) boundaries, the fact that change is not only seasonal but also geographical.
So what is the simple solution?
I’d start by (generally) designating “noon” as “12 O’clock” in each time zone (acknowledging that in many places “noon” will not conform to the sun’s precise zenith) and establishing a single, unchanging clock year-round based on that. I’d leave it up to individuals (businesses, local governments, etc.) to change their working hours as they feel the need.
You understand, this is only “simple” from one perspective, right?
Are we going to argue about what “simple” means now?
I’m using it to mean “in the fewest words, a rule to be applied to the greatest number of people.” Since there are a great number of people, this rule, for each of them to make their own decisions about when to work, when to sleep, when to commute, etc., this simple rule will have a very complex number of applications.
Yes, so this is simple from a very specific perspective.
And as you describe here, it is exactly the opposite of simple in terms of application. Requiring everyone to make individual decisions is not simple, especially when all of those decisions are interdependent. That’s why we created Standard Time in the first place.
Everyone has to make individual decisions right now, on the basis of how inconvenienced they feel about the clocks changing. Some people will choose to go to bed an hour earlier or later twice a year, some will choose to be miserable waking up or going home in the dark, some will choose careers where it doesn’t matter what time it gets dark out, and so on.
But this thread is a testament to the various individual responses to changing the clocks. I’m suggesting starting over with an undeniable truth (the definition of “noon”) and working from there.
It’s not simple when I have a job, my husband has a job, my two kids go to different schools, one of them is in daycare before and after school, my husband bowls once a week and I take a class once a week. That’s seven different organization whose decisions we will have to keep track of - and that’s not even counting having to know the hours of the post office/bank , etc so we know if we have enough time to go after work. At least with the twice a year time changes, pretty much everything in an area changes - sure, some person in business for himself might change their hours and open from 8-4 instead of 9-5 , but most won’t.
You’re confusing the clock with the complications of your own life. One has very little to do with the other.
No, you’re confusing the fact that it might be simple for you to make an individual decision about when to go to sleep, when to wake up etc. with the idea that it’s simple for everybody - you may have a life where you don’t need to interact much with other people and organizations and have a lot of flexibility with your own schedule, but not nearly everybody is in that position.
Which is, of course, an arbitrary definition. And, of course, even accepting that as a starting point, it does not lead to the proposed solution of “establishing a single, unchanging clock year-round based on that” as some kind of inevitable or necessary result, and especially not necessarily the most useful result for a complex, interconnected society.
I mean, really, the most logical “simple” solution would be to just establish a single global time zone, and let everyone just make their own scheduling decisions individually. That is the perfect solution to the criteria of “in the fewest words, a rule to be applied to the greatest number of people.”
doreen’s issues are not unusual. They are literally the entire reason we change the clocks, rather than rely on every individual person to change their schedule as the seasons change. We always had the ability to change our schedules to suit our preferences, and still have the ability to do so.
In fact, I invite our change hating folks to simply adjust their own schedules by an hour each time the clocks change, so they don’t have to adjust their waking schedule.
According to this article, it was meant to last two years as an experiment, but was so unpopular, it was reversed after less than one. It seems to have started in January 1974, when days are the shortest. That must have added to the shock of it.
Where Doreen (and you) is incorrect in her framing of the problem is that, about half the time, her individual problems with timing of her kids’ schools and her worktime, etc. would actually get better for her, and the other half the time she could have a voice in adjusting the inconvenient times (as she does now.) For example, say you’ve got a good job and your kid is in a good school but you’ve got too little time in the morning to get your kid off to school and get yourself into work on time. So what do you do now, if that’s the case? Lots of choices there–you can ask your boss to let you come in to work at 9:20 instead of 9:00 (and presumably work an extra 20 minutes somewhere), or you could ask the other parents in your school board to adopt a later (or earlier) school time, assuming many of them are having your problem. Doreen and you are refusing to see that the clock isn’t the problem because you’ve already made the choices and adjustments that allow your life to work smoothly, and you see any change to the status quo as threatening and disruptive. But you don’t see that the status quo is disruptive to everyone else’s life.
Actually, making these kinds of compromises and balancing competing interests is exactly what the legislative process is about. We have plenty of experience now with government mandating how the clock works. There is no reason to think that the government shouldn’t be doing this.
And plainly that experience is disruptive to many people. We’ve experienced the government fucking up things and reversing those fuckups after enough bad experiences. Plainly, you’re arguing for the status quo, plain and simple, and I’m arguing for some change in the status quo. Dressing your argument up in “This is the way it’s been done for years” doesn’t make it a stronger argument.
Say, for another example, your life is running smoothly, but you get a great job offer that requires you to work different hours. Do you reject it out of hand, saying “No, I’ve got my daily schedule all worked out?” Of course you don’t. You look for adjustments that you can make so you can accept the much better job.
Or say your kid’s school board decides to push the district’s start time up by an hour. Do you take your kid out of school? Enroll her in a different school? Of course not. You figure out what adjustments can be made. Maybe you have to hire someone to take your kid to school. Maybe you arrange for your kid to get into school earlier (or later) to fit your unchangeable work schedule. Maybe you ask your spouse if he or she can do the kid’s dropoff at school.
You’re inconvenienced by the fact that some people in other offices don’t get to work until an hour after your start time? Do you cut off all relations with them? Of course not–you make a mental note “So-and-so doesn’t start work until 10 AM” and plan accordingly.
Of course it may work out in your favor–now you know that So and so will be at his desk when you arrive at 9, so he will be ready to deal with you the second you get in. You can even make a preliminary phone call at 8 AM from your breakfast nook to get a jump on your dealings with So and So.
Exactly, and why do I want to do that twice a year, rather than change the number on my clock twice a year? I’m going to discuss my schedule with my boss, with the School, with the bowling league, with the local Chinese Takeout, and the Scouts, and the municipal offices, Home Depot, etc etc etc. Or, we can all just agree to change our clocks and leave everything else the same.
BTW, are you seriously thinking that I’m going to ask the school to change the schedule of 5,000 kids because I don’t have enough time in the morning? Then ask them to change it again in Spring?