Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

TzarKazm t1_jdwnxn6 wrote

Yes, please. I don't care if we go forward or back but let's just pick something and stick with it.

108

COVID_2019 t1_jdwogvr wrote

Same! Don't care about less or more sunlight one way or the other. Just want the debate to end so we don't have to keep moving all the manual clocks forward and back every year.

14

PakkyT t1_jdwrb9k wrote

Greenland has a population less than Waltham, so do we really want to base our actions on what they do?

−18

_mAkon_ t1_jdwtm23 wrote

Wasn’t there already a vote to stop this?

27

CrackityJones33 t1_jdwuw31 wrote

MA cannot stay in DST without an act of congress but we can elect to stay in standard time without federal approval.

MA and north of here in the US should really be in Atlantic time year round (GMT - 4) but for some reason we aligned with the rest of the eastern seaboard and it looks like we will be stuck this way forever.

There is a low probability the house pick up the vote on this one even though the senate unanimously past the vote.

39

TurnsOutImAScientist t1_jdwx6jr wrote

Pretty much a tradeoff between health/safety benefits for people active in early morning versus health/economic benefits from having more daylight after normal work hours. The two sides will never agree and thus the stalemate we're stuck with. But generally the pro-DST side is winning and has gained ground, we have like a month more DST than we did when I was a kid.

7

CrackityJones33 t1_jdwz42y wrote

You are right, it is possible, but outside of MA, especially in the southern states, if they were to stay in DST for the entire year they would not have light in some cases until nearly 8:00am in the morning. This is one of the major reasons it failed in the 70s when congress did pass legislation keeping DST permanent.

I doubt the country as a whole will change again, but I would like to see MA move to Atlantic time (which may be even a greater challenge). This would essentially allow us to stay on DST year round.

11

internetsarbiter t1_jdwz4fm wrote

Yes, though there are more important things to address, this would be welcome.

5

NioPullus t1_jdwz8qx wrote

Yes. There was a bill in congress, the Sunshine protection Act, which proposed making daylight savings time permanent. It was passed by the Senate but was then never even voted on by the House of Representatives. That’s congress for you.

34

UncleCustard t1_jdwzxyj wrote

Let's go a half hour in the middle. But please, for the love god, just get everyone in the same damn page.

4

plawwell t1_jdx0c2o wrote

This is Greenland the island as opposed to Greenland NH.

−1

savetheday21 t1_jdx1hs4 wrote

If we all collectively decide to not acknowledge changing the clocks going forward then they’d HAVE to abolish it no? Power in numbers.

2

ugmold t1_jdx27e1 wrote

Just like the Electoral College every time it comes around it is mentioned then forgotten for another year.

7

Current-Photo2857 t1_jdx2bd1 wrote

The benefit under the current method of biannually changing the clock is that we don’t have 8:30 sunrises in the winter (this is good, it’s proven we need daylight to fully awaken) but can also have 9:00 sunsets in the summer (this is unnecessary and actual bad for your health, it tricks your body into staying up later).

Most sleep experts agree that we should be in year-round standard time, and there was a bill proposed called the “Save Our Sleep Act” that would have done this.

3

bcb1200 t1_jdx2epd wrote

I’m all for stopping the change. But the only option is to stay on Standard (winter) time else the sun won’t come up in Michigan until 10 am in December.

−5

dog_magnet t1_jdx5hcv wrote

And if we stay on standard time, the sun will rise at 4 AM here in summer. Neither is a great solution if you take the extremes of the time zones.

The other option is recognizing that time zones aren't set in stone, and that maybe what's good for one place isn't good for another and change them accordingly. There's no reason why Michigan and Massachusetts have to be in the same time zone.

11

cdmoomaw t1_jdx62pm wrote

US Eastern time (UTC-5) is “ideally” centered at 75° W, extending 7.5° to either side. By this logic, one would expect the time zone to extend roughly from 67.5° W to 82.5° W. This actually puts all of New England in UTC-5 except only for the very easternmost parts of Maine.

Where things get wacky is looking at the other end of Eastern Time. 82.5° W falls just a bit west of Cleveland, and yet the time zone continues way past that. Really, MI, IN, KY, TN, GA, and over half of OH should be on Central time, but they aren’t.

I’m not sure how things came to be this way, but it’s interesting how our use of time has drifted from the idea of “Solar Time” in a lot of places.

I’m not arguing what we should or should not be doing about this. I just think this is some interesting context.

12

bcb1200 t1_jdx9bor wrote

Right but kids don’t have to walk to school or wait in the bus in the dark in MA in the summer. Whereas they do in MI.

They tried keeping summer hours in the Nixon administration. Lasted one year and then abandoned because it was too dark in the AM in Nov-Jan

−4

ajmacbeth t1_jdxa9jm wrote

Nope, I’m perfectly fine with bouncing back and forth btw EST and EDT.

−2

Emu_lord t1_jdxctza wrote

Unpopular opinion I guess but I prefer EST. I like being in the same time zone as the rest of the Eastern seaboard and being an hour off from Connecticut would be so annoying because I go there all the time (Connecticut would never Change away from EST because of their proximity to New York City).

3

sad0panda t1_jdxk30w wrote

Thank you. I've grown really tired of people saying New England should be on AST or permanent DST. When we are on standard time we are right where we are supposed to be, in terms of solar time.

Yes, this means ~4:30am sunrises and ~7:30pm sunsets in the summer. 👍

3

Ok-Calligrapher964 t1_jdxn2a7 wrote

yes but I thnk we need to turn the clocks back this fall and stay on that time which is 'normal' time.

2

HeyaShinyObject t1_jdxoki0 wrote

Too soon to make a change. Every computer needs to be updated, probably millions in MA alone. In companies with thousands of computers and network devices, this could take six months of testing and actual production deploys.

−19

bcb1200 t1_jdxp4f9 wrote

Right and now that sunrise will change to 7:30/8:30 am if you keep it DST year round. After 9 am in Michigan.

Listen, say what you want. It was tried in the early 70s and everyone hated it so much it didn’t even last 1 year. That will happen again

It’s much better to have the sun rise at 4 am and set at 8 pm in summer than to have the sun rise at 8:30 am and set at 5:30 pm in Winter.

−1

ckfinite t1_jdxp5w3 wrote

There's a whole protocol for doing exactly this. It's the time zone database/tz/tzinfo and is regularly updated for this very reason. Lots of countries and regions fiddle with their time on a regular basis and every major operating system has been able to accommodate it for decades. You can see a long discussion about managing DST or lack thereof in Egypt and Lebanon in the associated mailing lists just this month.

tzinfo updates usually are packaged into broader OS updates. Getting the right time is just a matter of running Windows Update or whatever other update utility you use. You can even check out the list of all of the DST-specific updates that Microsoft has done here.

12

HeyaShinyObject t1_jdxpzu9 wrote

The key being that some companies change control will require a structured plan to roll it out, possibly in phases. My last company only had a few thousand production servers, in a non emergency would probably do this over a month or two. In tandem with regular patching. Network devices are sometimes another story.
People don't realize it's a bit more complicated than just saying "don't change your clocks".

−5

bcb1200 t1_jdxqks3 wrote

Violent?

Move south towards the equator and you’ll get 6 am sunrise / 6pm sunset year round. Europe regularly gets 4 am sunrises in summer months in northern regions. Scotland. Scandinavia. Etc.

There are lots of studies and expert opinion that all support stopping the change. But only if it stays in standard time.

1

ebow77 t1_jdxs5zt wrote

Personally I like having the sun rise before 8:00 a.m. in the winter, and stay up until 8:00 p.m. or later in the summer. Yeah the time change is mildly annoying and disruptive, but to me it's worth it.

2

JJ2o2o t1_jdxsrx8 wrote

As a Michigan kid, I absolutely loved it being still light at 9:30pm in the summer.

4:15pm sunsets in December here get me bummed but I've gotten used to it.

4

polkadotkneehigh t1_jdxw7sm wrote

I love daylight savings time. It’s the only holiday where you get a (free! uncommercialized!) gift of either extra sleep or extra sun.

−6

AnonymityIsForChumps t1_jdy4fiy wrote

That's only the ideal if you think that noon should be the middle of the day. I don't.

I'm almost always awake 8 hours after noon at 8 PM, but almost never awake 8 hours before noon at 4 AM. The schedule of our lives aren't centered around noon, so why should the daylight hours?

3

Graflex01867 t1_jdy8lh5 wrote

We should do it, but ONLY if the whole country does it. Being the oddball state one hour off from everyone else would suck.

1

Current-Photo2857 t1_jdymom4 wrote

And on the flip side, having extra daylight late at night tricks your body into thinking it’s earlier than it is and you take longer to go to sleep (which is why the experts who proposed the act said people lose an average of 30 something minutes of sleep per night during DST).

9

Priminishelseau09 t1_jdywatm wrote

As a software developer, I sorely wish everyone would just use UTC, year round!

2

Alternative-Bee-8981 t1_jdz0xnh wrote

We need to fall back to standard time and stay there. DST sucks, and now it's useless. Plus who the hell wants sunrise at 930 in the winter time?! Nope! This was tried in the 70's it didn't work then, and even scientists agree standard time is better than DST.

2

Mermaid_La_Reine t1_jdz2575 wrote

No. Get back on Standard Time (sun basically at high noon) and stay there. This will also provide many more benefits. Save Standard Time list of benefits

It’s the same light every year—it’s never been a surprise. 9-hours of daylight in Winter (solstice), 12-hours in Spring & Autumnal (Equinox), and 15-hours is daylight in the Summer (solstice). Nobody is ‘making more sunlight’.

"Time ‘Change’: only a fool would believe that you could cut a foot off the top of a blanket and sew it to the bottom of a blanket and have a longer blanket.”

1

Alternative-Bee-8981 t1_jdzlvx7 wrote

We need more sun in the morning to actually get up. Having sunrise be so late would make it harder to get up, plus it's worse for humans body clocks.

They tried permanent DST in the 70's, it didn't even last a year before they stopped it. We need to just stay on standard time, it just makes the most sense.

2

jeninebarofeglo t1_jdzm6y6 wrote

The debate did end

That’s why we change our clocks every year

The only people whining are the ones who don’t like that

The rest of the world moves on

It’s actually exciting to change the clocks, like a celebration, and we will keep it that way

−3

Mannymarlo t1_jdzokw7 wrote

It needs to end It's completely ridiculous

3

swatlord t1_jdzpjrg wrote

Not really. Most internet enabled devices would probably get it on their regular round of updates. Just a switch to no longer flip between $ST and $DT. Most apps go by system time anyway so they’ll go by whatever device time is. The only thing that would be a pain would be anything that doesn’t receive automatic updates or anything not internet-connected.

1

shameonyounancydrew t1_jdzuzgl wrote

We are so much farther East than most of the East Coast. At the very least, we should be in the Atlantic time zone

1

HeyaShinyObject t1_jdzvxgm wrote

I understand how ntp and timezone files work. I know most people won't have an issue, or maybe their lights won't come on at the right time because their automation hub didn't update, but no big deal. In commercial environments, often with thousands of devices, automatic updates are often disabled. Updates are tested in a lab, then a QA environment, then rolled out to production servers in phases. In regulated industries like healthcare and finance, there is typically more process. Every change is documented, scheduled, authorized and verified. The actual change might only take a couple days to roll out, but it's not like companies have people sitting around waiting to do this, they have day to day business to take care of as well.

−1

RedditSkippy t1_jdzxbd8 wrote

Yes. Because by late June Eastern Mass has decent daylight by 4:30am. Push that to 5:30.

1

swatlord t1_jdzykji wrote

Yep, I'm one of those people who works in said environments. I can say, with confidence, that with automation available at the orgs you mention (Commonly MECM, Intune, or GPO for Windows and Ansible for Linux/anything else SSH) this change would be pretty dang trivial.

Windows Registry example (likely delivered through GPO, MECM, or Intune) - This would cover most use-cases for the environments you mention.

To add, I also work in one of those "regulated industries" (government/defense). There are specific processes for stuff like this that requires quick action and to bypass normal CCBs. An example for the gov/mil side is when 0-days are discovered (think SolarWinds and Log4J). Do they want to spend months testing and approving? Hell no! While flipping a time-zone config isn't exactly the same as remediating a vulnerability, fixing it would be important to business continuity to justify some expedited changes.

> The actual change might only take a couple days to roll out, but it's not like companies have people sitting around waiting to do this, they have day to day business to take care of as well.

Most of the companies you mentioned in regulated industries do have folks that spend their work day doing this. People like ISSOs/ISSMs, change/config managers, automation engineers just to name a few. It is their business to stay abreast of upcoming changes and respond.

2

HeyaShinyObject t1_jdzzp82 wrote

The company I must recently worked at would turn a zero day around essentially overnight as well. But we didn't like it, because something else got pushed aside for it. This will be somewhat more than a typical zero day because it will affect every class of device, whereas most zero days only affect certain classes or versions of devices. The original point was that you don't want to turn something like this into a last minute emergency by passing legislation that doesn't allow industry time to deal with it.

1

HeyaShinyObject t1_je02r69 wrote

Realistically, it won't pass for months. My bet is it will take effect next year, if at all.

Interestingly, CT tried to pass a bill last year, but broadcasters opposed it and it never got passed. Apparently Congress has to approve the change as well.

CT 's bill would have been contingent on MA, NY, and RI also adopting AST.

1

Alternative-Bee-8981 t1_je0btva wrote

No it doesn't, not when we'll have sunrise at 930 in the morning in winter. Plus it's been tried before in the 70's and it worked out so well that they stopped doing it after a short period of time. That and Drs say it's more important for morning sunlight than afternoon. It's better for sleep patterns etc

3

SXTY82 t1_je0giu8 wrote

MA should do two things.

  1. Stop changing the time, stick to the hour forward we have now.
  2. Switch from the Eastern Time to Atlantic time. MA, ME, NH and RI are all in the wrong time zone.
2

snozzcumbersoup t1_je0kn90 wrote

Whatever we do is going to be a compromise. Depressing morning or depressing afternoon. But between the two, I would choose the compromise which requires not changing our entire lives twice a year.

Schools can adjust times if they feel they need to. Big deal. And I say that as someone with kids. I'd rather keep my kids on the same sleep schedule, and simpy go to school a half hour later or whatever makes sense for when sunrise is in my particular location than change the damn clocks twice a year. The adjustment is a bitch every time and it takes about a week to normalize.

1

RandyCheeseburgers01 t1_je11cgy wrote

Using Boston as an example, the earliest sunset time on EST last year was 4:11 PM EST in early December 2022. You realize that this would mean a sunset time of 5:11 EDT if we had switched to permanent DST? It's not like 8:00 PM sunsets would be a year-round thing with permanent DST.

5

RandyCheeseburgers01 t1_je12h3j wrote

I guess the question is why our days are no longer centered around solar noon. Intuitively, that has to be the most natural way, evolutionarily speaking. Our circadian rhythms haven't changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution. That's not the kind of time scale evolution operates on.

5

Current-Photo2857 t1_je1a4a4 wrote

You wouldn’t get daylight in the winter waking up at 4am anyway? In standard time, winter sunrise is around 7am or later (which is when PLENTY of people are waking up/heading to school or work)…if we were in DST in the winter, sunrises would be as late as almost 8:30 for some areas, and most people need to be awake and at work before then.

3

sad0panda t1_je1pucn wrote

Standard time means the sun is directly above you at noon (or, roughly close to it). DST is the "switch". Until 2007, DST was 4 weeks shorter.

Personally I'm actually OK with the time change. Once you get to a certain point in summer, yeah, 4:30 sunrise doesn't really make sense. But it should happen in April and October, not March and November. This 6:30 sunrise is killing me, we were just making progress when the DST switch hit.

2

bthks t1_je2bwlu wrote

Ah, I misunderstood you-thought you were talking about growing up in Michigan and seeing 4:15 sunsets there. Maybe I’m remembering the end time of school, but there were definitely rides home where the school bus had to turn their lights on.

2

ksoops t1_je2oz3m wrote

Think of it more as scheduling rather than "SwITcHiNg TiMe ZoNEs Oh NOo!"

"Party starts at 8/7? Cool. I'll be there."

Not that fucking hard.

If you work in one state and live in another... Adjust. Seriously, again.. not that big a deal.

1