If we have Daylight Saving Time all year long, what are we going to do with all the daylight that we save?
Hardest thing for me is trying to justify all this to the dogs. They know when it’s time to eat.
(poor taste joke deleted)
Save it for a rainy day.
Huh ?
We’ve got to wait another 2 weeks here (UK).
We messed with ours 15 years ago I think it was. It was a minor IT issue at the time.
I rolled out of bed this morning at what appeared to be a reasonable time on my self-resetting bedside clock.
Then I got into the kitchen to make coffee where the oven and microwave were unanimous that I’d gotten up earlier than expected. Cue sudden rush of remembering that today is DST day. Despite having talked about it yesterday, and it being a major multi-week PITA throughout my industry.
So I finished making coffee, reset those primitive clocks, and enjoyed some quiet balcony time during my unexpected pre-dawn hour.
Life is good.
Clocks are reset. Only 8 now. I took one down in the kitchen that will shortly have no purpose. All that is left is cars.
8 clocks? Wow. I have 2 wristwatches, the two kitchen clocks I mentioned, and one car. My wife has one car plus ???. My various computer-gizmos all take care of DST on their own.
I can’t imagine having so many old-fashioned timepieces around. I’d also prefer the oven & microwave not have clocks. And a pony. A blond one.
First of all, it’s winter-forward, fall-back ever since they changed it to the 2nd Sunday in March.
Where I live, sunrise in early January is at 7:15 standard time. If we went for all-DST, the kiddies would be walking to school in darkness, which is why the 1974 law was quickly modified before the next October. Also, sunrise would be after 9am in Detroit, Indianapolis, Boise, Seattle. For me, sunrise in early June, it would be 4:18 if we stayed on standard time year-'round. That’s a waste of daylight for me Which is why, I like it just the way it is (although I think we should sync with Europe and change the clocks on the last Sundays in March/October).
Which brings about a quasi-legal question: Last year, the previous U.S. Senate voted unanimously for year-'round DST. The House did nothing. If the House today approved the same bill, could Biden sign it into law without the current Senate re-voting on the proposal?
I have 4 scatter downstairs. Clocks are good in crafting/workshop areas where you don’t have a hand free to check the phone. So I have my shop clock, my crafting table clock and my 3D printing area clock. One is in the gaming area but is a sailboat clock. Upstairs are the oven & microwave and 2 digital radio alarm clocks. Nice to have in the bedroom and the living room.
My watches I haven’t used in so many years, maybe as many as 20 years. I have 3 spare clocks, not in use also. I’ll have to stop tossing or Goodwilling them eventually.
I’d be fine if they just split the difference as mentioned above.
But I don’t really care that much. My Wife and I are very early risers. Around 4am. So it’s dark no mater what. We don’t use alarms or anything. That’s just when we get up. Of course that means we go to bed early. I wouldn’t mind tweeking my schedule so I at least sleep till 5 or 6 but it’s very hard to do.
I work from home, and am not on a strict schedule. So it doesn’t really matter.
My wife and I have been discussing this a bit the last few days. Her waking is strongly correlated with the light, so she prefers the current system which helps her wake at a more consistent (tho still ridiculously early) time.
Me - I have given it a lot of thought, and have been quite impressed at how much I do not care. Light in the morning, light at night, change or not - really couldn’t care. Light or not, I’m not getting out of bed without the alarm. And going to work sucks just as bad whether it is light or dark out. Just surprised me because there are countless less significant issues that I have VERY strong opinions about! 
I think. with either change, there will be days around the solstices when people complain about the sun rising at 3-4 AM, or not until 8-9.
Neither of us perceive the discomfort involved in adapting our - or our dog’s - circadian rhythm.
I have one wristwatch for work and one for dress. The former will be sacrificed during my upcoming post-retirement ceremony/bender. The latter I wear rarely, and more for looks than as a timepiece. When it quits I may just reset it to 12:00 and keep it as jewelry, not as a clock. A stopped clock may be right twice a day, but at least 12:00 is recognizably wrong the rest of the day. 
Stephen Bishop? What are you doing here? And at this time of day, no less.
But the clocks moved forward an hour.
I got up at 6am on a clock that had reset itself. While I had forgotten about that reset. Meanwhile out in the real world it was only 5am solar time. So I had 90+ minutes until sun-up not the 30 minutes the already-reset clock suggested I should have had based on yesterday’s relationship between clock & solar time.
The switch doesn’t bother me, nor does going to no switch. I do object to DST as a constant, though.
Correlation without causation.
Much as I hate changing the time twice a year, I do have to concede that DST once prevented a terrorist bombing.
This seems to be a fairly up-to-date, even-handed treatment of the topic, which portrays as historical fact that the USA flirted with DST during both world wars when the Allies left no stone unturned trying to keep up with the Germans. It only became Federal law in the 1960s to enforce a little regularity on interstate shipping schedules.
My Dad was a farmer and hated DST, so I have this ingrained bias against it. DST was certainly more important in an agrarian economy because of its use during the growing season.
The point of the NPR story is that DST nowadays does not confer any energy-saving benefits — if ever it did. It’s attractiveness to modern society is that it extends shopping hours. And, as you know, we all shop 'til the cows come home, so actually it’s a net energy loser. We could live without it.
Proponents of DST point to Benjamin Franklin as the “inventor of DST.”
But they and members of the Media are tone deaf when it comes to listening to and appreciating satire, which Franklin’s letter certainly is. I doubt that they have read it as a back-handed comment on Parisian high society of the 18th century, or they would not refer to it as any serious justification for DST.