Doesn't matter, the bus still crosses a line where the time jumps an hour. Apparently at that point there is a non-zero chance your heart explodes or something.
**** daylight savings
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
Standard time is a July 1st sunrise of 4:19am here in Chicagoland. So starts getting light out about 3:45am. Yeah, that's much better than the horror of changing our clocks a couple times a year.....
I don't care if it's dark until 10am. Give me light later in the day, when we can use it.
I don't care if it's dark until 10am. Give me light later in the day, when we can use it.
People are pissed off enough in this chit town.
Let's at least have some sun as we're stuck in our homes 6+ months of the year.
Last edited:
Does sound crazy. Guess people would adapt and do what cave persons did. Go to bed at 8p, wake up at 4a and play 9 holes of golf before work.
It's an over complication that we don't need. Just pick one and stay with it. Simple is better.
The problem is going to be some states picking one and some picking other if they allow opt outs. Looking at you Arizona.
But it's an unnecessary inconvenience.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
I get into work a little after 6, so this time of year is about the only time I see the sun on my way in. I'd much rather have more daylight hours after work, and I think having to adjust back and forth is dumb.
People that live above the artic circle are rolling their eyes at us.
Standard time is better if we are going to just stick with one. I want to be able to be outside at night during the summer without staying up past 10. I also need the early sun in the winter otherwise I won’t wake up. Frankly just sticking with what we have is fine. Permanent DST is a disaster.
I'm in the "pick one and stick with it" camp.
I'm sure there could be pros/cons to choosing either as the permanent. I vaguely recall the '70s DST "experiment," but was too young to know directly how it was received. In retrospect, from what I've read and heard, it had high support when it went into effect, then dwindled a lot within several months.
I'm not even against a clock change, but I think DST ought to be like mid-May to mid-December (or even early June to early January).
I'm sure there could be pros/cons to choosing either as the permanent. I vaguely recall the '70s DST "experiment," but was too young to know directly how it was received. In retrospect, from what I've read and heard, it had high support when it went into effect, then dwindled a lot within several months.
I'm not even against a clock change, but I think DST ought to be like mid-May to mid-December (or even early June to early January).
People are so soft that they can't even handle a 1 hour time change twice a year.
Some people take their complaints about the time change overboard. But I feel like the people complaining about the people complaining about the time change to be more over the top/annoying.
And I'm not sure the arguments about travelling across time zones or staying up later on the weekends, etc. are the winning arguments that people think they are.
Sure, I often stay up more than an hour later on Friday or Saturday nights. It's also the weekend and I don't have kids. Of course I'm not going to complain; I can sleep in the next day. Same thing when crossing a time zone. If I'm doing that, I'm almost always on vacation so I can just sleep in. That's completely different than having a time change and needing to work the next day. And if I do stay up late and have to work the next day, my sleep does suffer.
I'd prefer permanent DST, but if we're going to keep switching, I'd prefer that they make the switch Saturday morning at 2:00 a.m. as opposed to Sunday morning at 2:00 a.m. It only takes basically a day to make the switch, so have that day be Sunday and people will be more likely to be back to normal on Monday.
What is the point if we are going to have DST on the shortest day of the year (~20-22 DEC)?
