Submitted by overdoing_it t3_y4l9oc in newhampshire
tuctrohs t1_isf6ika wrote
Reply to comment by Azr431 in Really don't feel like ending daylight savings in 3 weeks by overdoing_it
Separate questions:
-
Should we switch every six months? and, if not,
-
Which one should we stay on.
The second question is location specific. What's ideal for a state near the eastern edge of a time zone is different from what's ideal for a state at the opposite edge.
Azr431 t1_isfmpas wrote
Switching is not healthy for our bodies, it should remain standard all year. Longitudinally, it's not much of a difference. Latitude differences are more pronounced between the seasons.
tuctrohs t1_isfnwj8 wrote
You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Because switching is not healthy on our bodies, you should argue for keeping it the same all year. Then separately, there's the question of which time zone it should be on.
The idea that longitudinally it's not much of a difference doesn't make sense. That's the reason that we have time zones, and normally, from one edge of a time zone to the next it makes exactly 1 hour of difference, which is exactly the size that we're talking about. And in fact, the Eastern Time zone extends over a little bit longer east to west difference than that.
There are legitimate arguments for what you are advocating, if you slow down and think through them carefully you'll have a better time convincing other people.
Azr431 t1_isfqcew wrote
>You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Because switching is not healthy on our bodies, you should argue for keeping it the same all year.
That's literally what I wrote:
>Switching is not healthy for our bodies, it should remain standard all year.
The OP is not making an argument for time zone demarcations, they're arguing for retaining daylight saving all year. You'll always have variations between the farthest edges of one zone to the opposite edge of another. You'll also have a 1 hr difference between two areas right next to each other. There's simply no way around that.
The OP's argument would affect areas of different latitudes most significantly.
tuctrohs t1_isfrrz7 wrote
>>You seem to have missed the point of my comment. Because switching is not healthy on our bodies, you should argue for keeping it the same all year. > >That's literally what I wrote: > >>Switching is not healthy for our bodies, it should remain standard all year. >
The difference between those two is exactly what I said it was. You included the word standard. You might have a reason to prefer a standard time over daylight savings time, but avoiding switching is doesn't tell you which time zone you should prefer.
>The OP is not making an argument for time zone demarcations,
I know, it was you that said that longitude doesn't matter which is simply absurd.
> You'll always have variations between the farthest edges of one zone to the opposite edge of another. You'll also have a 1 hr difference between two areas right next to each other. There's simply no way around that.
Yes, but the abrupt change between adjacent areas and different time zones was not the issue I raised. > >The OP's argument would affect areas of different latitudes most significantly.
I think in this sub we're talking about New Hampshire. The difference in latitude from one end to the other is not much. The difference in longitude isn't much either, in fact the whole state is quite far to the east within it's time zone. Which is why it's interesting to consider either permanent daylight savings time or standard time and joining the Atlantic time zone for New Hampshire.
Azr431 t1_isfwk4n wrote
Thought it was pretty clearly implied standard meant daylight standard time but ok
People that advocate for daylight saving all year usually don’t see the forest for the trees. They don’t consider how it would impact the rest of the country, time shifting doesn’t operate in a vacuum and only affect NH. Sunset isn’t until almost 10pm in parts of the PNW and upper Midwest, it’s so weird going to bed with the sun still up and then it rises late in the morning. Then factor in world times and it’s more of a mess
Anyways this has sucked up more time than I care about it lol
tuctrohs t1_isg0sel wrote
> Thought it was pretty clearly implied standard meant daylight standard time but ok
<sigh>. There's no such thing as "daylight standard time". There's standard time and there's DST = daylight savings time. In other case, you missed the point of my comment, which was to separate the choice between those two, and the choice of whether or not to switch twice a year. Regardless of which you thought you were specifying, you were not saying the same thing as I was.
> People that advocate for daylight saving all year usually don’t see the forest for the trees. They don’t consider how it would impact the rest of the country, time shifting doesn’t operate in a vacuum and only affect NH. Sunset isn’t until almost 10pm in parts of the PNW and upper Midwest, it’s so weird going to bed with the sun still up and then it rises late in the morning. Then factor in world times and it’s more of a mess
If NH moves to the Atlantic time zone that is not going to affect the PNW and Midwest. I sure am glad that you see that your time here is wasted.
[deleted] t1_isfquhm wrote
[deleted]
Azr431 t1_isfrjnt wrote
His second point is not the topic from the OP, not to mention it’s irrelevant
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments