Poll: Daylight Spazzing Time
-
Continuing the discussion from The Hard Problem:
@caffiend said:
On the other hand, our politicians aren't so smart, the one state on the east coast of Australia which doesn't have DST does shuns it on the basis that it "fade's the curtains" and it "confuses the cows".
I appreciate the joke, but the real reason they don't do it in Queensland is that solar time in Brisbane is already an hour ahead of Melbourne. In the middle of summer the sun is up for nearly 15 hours and sunset is nearly 9pm. Daylight Savings would make that 10pm. Curtains gonna fade either way.
They don't do it because the north of Queensland outvoted the more metropolitan south. Purely political reasons. It's right there in the article:
(As an amusing side note: like an idiot, I spent like 5 minutes trying to understand why Australia does DST from October to April. Sometimes my own mind is a
to understanding.)Being a farmer's kid, that once worked from "can to cain't" just like all the other farmers [spoiler](only partially an outrageous lie)[/spoiler] I can tell you that pretty much all rural folk think DST is completely dumb. Well, actually the proper dividing line is between those who work an immovable business/industrial work schedule and those who don't.
Really, DST is just a labor extraction tool, to force our urban societies to get up at "can" so they'll be more productive. Otherwise, the lazy sods would all sleep in until the beginning of the utterly regimented and immovable business/industrial work hours, and be unproductive for all that early daylight. It's stated right out by the inventors of the concept:
Because we must, "Early to bed and early to rise...," and we must force our industrial
slavesworkers to be productive.The nickname, "Daylight Slaving Time" is quite apt.
So let's have a proper poll on it:
[poll name=daylightslavingtime]
- My state/province/fief doesn't use DST
- I work immovable hours and love DST
- I work immovable hours and hate DST
- I don't work immovable hours and love DST
- I don't work immovable hours and hate DST
- What in the world is DST?
- OBLIGATORY_FILE_NOT_FOUND
[/poll]
Addendum: Conclusions here.
-
And a secondary poll. After all, an extra hour of daylight in the evening is always a good thing, right?
[poll name=alldst]
- I think we should do DST year 'round
- What, are you insane?
[/poll]
-
[poll name=LBdoesnotcare]
- I don't really care
- I really don't care
[/poll]
-
They don't do it because the north of Queensland outvoted the more metropolitan south.
Somewhat similar here in Western Australia. After the latest trial the metropolitan population voted somewhat in favour of DST; the rural population voted strongly against it. Personally, I'm in the metropolitans-against-DST group. Never saw any real benefit to it, but it caused plenty of real problems. I was quite glad when it was voted down and I could get back to ignoring the whole issue.
-
If those fuckers who invented DST can come by twice a year and set 15 different clocks to correct time, then fine, whatever. Otherwise, DIE DIE DIE IN FUCKING FIRE FUCKEEERSSS!
-
The whole DST thing is extra funny in places where you get like 3 or so hours of daylight in winter. Pretty much regardless of what you do, you go to work when it's dark, and you leave work when it's dark. If you go for lunch outside of the office, you might see that mythical thing called the sun once in a while (if it's not too cloudy, but it probably is).
-
The effect of dawn and dusk vary depending on how far "above and below" the equator. So much so that the poles have a "six month night and day".
Equally, any DST measures are only temporary - sooner or later it is going to be dark for hours after you wake up in order to punch the clock and dark for hours before you clock out; add to that the fact that we are increasingly moving towards a genuine 24 hour society.
So, unless you have the equivalent of DST every month (or more) there would seem to be little point in it's continuance. As only having it once (INB4: One Cycle that is) is a PITA, extra "cycles" are going to make that much worse.
Therefore, I see very little need for it in modern industrialised communities. The argument for largely agricultural ones may be different, but it could also be said that that don't have clocks.... However, more and more of these societies will have personal mobile phones etc at (possibly) the expense of other "essentials".
-
Year-long DST is ultra-advanced stupid.
Yes, switching should be abolished BUT the time kept should be so that 1200 should be as close to Solar Noon as possible (without creating a not-whole-hour-offset timezone).
-
This is one of those things we need to draw a line under and forget about. Yes, its nice that for a few brief weeks in winter we have extra light in the morning but everyone's sleeping pattern if fucked for about two weeks and we're all cranky.
-
Yes, its nice that for a few brief weeks in winter we have extra light in the morning
You have it all backwards.
The time in summer is a LIE! Because it completely contradicts how noon and midnight are supposed to work.
-
The Netherlands, as well as Belgium, France, and I think even Spain, are in CET, which I'm pretty sure matches solar noon somewhere around Berlin. By rights all of those should be using +00:00. So basically we use DST in winter and double DST in summer.
Solar time in The Netherlands is about 20 minutes after GMT.
-
The whole DST thing is extra funny in places where you get like 3 or so hours of daylight in winter.
Like Scotland.
-
CET, which I'm pretty sure matches solar noon somewhere around Berlin.
Well, good thing I live relatively close to the middle of Germany.
-
E_FLEXIBLE_WORK_HOURS_NOT_FOUND<a
-
Solar time in The Netherlands is about 20 minutes after GMT.
Spain is even worse. The Western part is an hour off, if I'm not mistaken.
-
Year-long DST is ultra-advanced stupid.
In France, it's even worse - they're full-DST in the winter and double-DST in the summer!Edit:
. That's what I get for replying without reading whole topic...
-
E_FLEXIBLE_WORK_HOURS_NOT_FOUND<a
Work around: just use "I don't work immovable hours and [love/hate] DST."
RESOLVED_WONT_FIX
-
[poll name=Does this thread need more polls?]
- Yes, it doesn't need more polls
- No, it does need more polls
[/poll]
-
Work around: just use "I don't work immovable hours and [love/hate] DST."
E_MEH_ATTITUDE_TOWARDS_DST_NOT_FOUND
:-P
-
[poll]
- @LB_ is immune to the username at polls bug
- FILE_NOT_FOUND
[/poll]
-
Finally! A rational poll likely to get true random results!
Filed under: Currently,
I really don't careis winning by 7% overI don't really care!
-
huh......
lol wut?
-
-
I remember reading about studies in the past that pointed out that the number of automobile accidents rise during the week following the start of Daylight Saving Time.
I'm too
lazybusy to look them up, though.
-
Here's one that came up right away on Google.
-
I was trying to type up something in Bugs about that. I then realized I don't know
the Discoterms are for half the UI so repro steps would amount to: Click shit until Ducksauce breaks.That's just Disconormal.
-
Click shit until Ducksauce breaks.
mmmm...... duck sauce......
/me gets a sudden craving for chinese at her favorite little restaraunt.... a restaraunt she will be driving by on her way to the formal wear shop (BLEARGH!) tonight.
-
-
the number of automobile accidents rise during the week following the start of Daylight Saving Time
Well, it seems to be timed perfectly so that rush hour traffic is driving directly toward the sun again as soon as DST takes effect each year. That could have something to do with it.
-
So the votes are in and, to my surprise, the people voting didn't care whether or not they were working immovable hours. Of the 51 who voted, 73% voted in the love/hate category; and of those, fully 92% hated DST. (The breakdown for those with immovable hours, 92% hate; for flexible hours, 91% hate.)
So how to explain the fact that votes run, on the order of 45%/55% (or 55%/45%) in referendums? I think that confirms something I've suspected about democracy: about half of the people will vote in favor of anything, whether it's a good idea or not.
Then I dropped in a curiosity question of mine, whether or not people would be in favor of simply doing DST year around. I expected to get trashed in this one, with 95%+ calling me insane for even conceiving such a heresy. But the actual result of 26%/73%--higher than in the love/hate--suggests that it isn't so much DST per se, but the time change that is the perceived source of all evil.
You can read it differently if you like.
-
So how to explain the fact that votes run, on the order of 45%/55% (or 55%/45%) in referendums?
A complicating factor is that most of us here work in IT, and have had to make adjustments for DST other than getting up an hour earlier or later.
-
...or that a lot of IT people aren't morning people.
Changing the clocks to effectively make me be up an hour earlier isn't going to improve my disposition any. I can look out the window and see it's an hour earlier1 even if I have no other way of telling.
If you want everyone to change their work hours, mandate that they come in an hour earlier during the summer, don't force everyone to change their clocks.
1Pro-tip: The sun is generally in the south-center of the sky at noon in the Northern hemisphere. Not slightly south-east.
-
...or that a lot of IT people aren't morning people.
I find myself blessed in that work allows me to come in at 9a. Also that I don't "get to" change my sleep schedule twice a year.
Unfortunately that doesn't stop the shenanigans mandated from other zones...
-
Or you can force everyone use sundials.
-
Or you can implement flabdablet time.
-
Oh no... not another competing standards.
//double
-
I have a silly story about this topic. One of my tv subscriptions record ice hockey but because their system didn't account for the clocks going back their recording was off by an hour so my ice hockey round up show wasn't recorded =( They did refund me a month though! ^_^
-
So how to explain the fact that votes run, on the order of 45%/55% (or 55%/45%) in referendums? I think that confirms something I've suspected about democracy: about half of the people will vote in favor of anything, whether it's a good idea or not.
More importantly, probably, is the large percentage of people who rarely or never vote.
-
Oh no... not another competing standards.
//double
Yep. Looks like we need yet another standard to coordinate all these blasted time standards.
More importantly, probably, is the large percentage of people who rarely or never vote.
That certainly has an effect. But in another sense I've observed that it doesn't seem to matter. Take constitutional amendments here in Florida: It looks to me like about half the people will vote "yes" no mater how crappy the content; apparently on the principle that, "Duh! Someone must have thought it was a good idea."
Take Florida Amendment 6, 2014, which was purely nothing but (interpreted) "Allow the governor to stuff the Florida courts with cronies." It did fail, but 47.9% of the voters voted to approve this clunker. (Note: it takes 60% yes to pass, so it was a long way from passage.)
-
Take Florida Amendment 6, 2014, which was purely nothing but (interpreted) "Allow the governor to stuff the Florida courts with cronies."
It works on the federal level, why wouldn't it be a good thing for Florida?
-
It works on the federal level, why wouldn't it be a good thing for Florida?
I know you meant to be a
but I'm going to take it seriously. As proposed, there would have been a huge difference.- The President has to select someone acceptable to Congress, specifically the Senate, which must advise and consent to every choice he makes. Yes, that gives the President a lot of latitude (especially when the party controlling the Senate is the President's party) but still is a large constraint on who can be choosen.
- The Florida governor would have chosen from 3-6 nominees provided by the relevant Judicial Nominating committee, with no further advice and consent. Oh, and guess who appoints the Judicial Nominating committee members (see the section headed "Judicial Nominating Commissions" if you're interested)...
So: Federal, some constraint; Florida as proposed, one-stop despotism.
-
50% matches my household
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EUTMPuvHo
This menace must be stopped.Week two. Fucking hell where is my coffee gone.
-
More importantly, probably, is the large percentage of people who rarely or never vote.
So we've got solutions to all your problems: First, voting in Australia is compulsory. By which I mean, you must turn up to the polling place and have your name marked off. You don't need to actually put anything on the ballot, just put it in the box unmarked if you like. That's not really legal but nobody will stop you.
Second, we only vote "No" to constitutional amendments. It's very rare for an amendment to get up in Australia. Even when we were voting to remove that inbred German family as the hereditary head of state, we voted No. The scary prospect of the son becoming King soon might kick that along, especially combined with the country's most prominent republican being the current Prime Minister.
-
So we've got solutions to all your problems: First, voting in Australia is compulsory. By which I mean, you must turn up to the polling place and have your name marked off. You don't need to actually put anything on the ballot, just put it in the box unmarked if you like. That's not really legal but nobody will stop you.
That is SUCH an awful idea. Like... amazingly so.
"Welcome to our modern representative democracy, where we celebrate freedom! BTW, you must be at this location at this time, or we'll send men with guns to your house. Enjoy the freedom!"
Second, we only vote "No" to constitutional amendments.
Feh. That's nothing. We don't even get constitutional amendments in front of Congress, because everybody's given up EVER trying to get a 2/3rds ratification of one even again.
Even when we were voting to remove that inbred German family as the hereditary head of state, we voted No.
Goddamned. You had the chance to ditch the monarchy and you didn't do it?
I guess that's the kind of genius thought processes you have going in a country where people think forced voting is a good idea.
-
everybody's given up EVER trying to get a 2/3rds ratification of one even again
How would you go about amending the law so you didn't need a 2/3 majority?
-
So we've got solutions to all your problems: First, voting in Australia is compulsory
Awful. That just encourages the clueless to vote. And I'm not talking about people who have nutty ideas (there are plenty of those on any side of an issue), but the people who literally have no idea what's going on or who is running for what, or even what the offices they'd be voting for actually are.
Second, we only vote "No" to constitutional amendments.
This is my personal approach to voting on proposals to borrow money for whatever.
-
Feh. That's nothing. We don't even get constitutional amendments in front of Congress, because everybody's given up EVER trying to get a 2/3rds ratification of one even again.
It took over 200 years to get approval for the last one.
-
Awful. That just encourages the clueless to vote. And I'm not talking about people who have nutty ideas (there are plenty of those on any side of an issue), but the people who literally have no idea what's going on or who is running for what, or even what the offices they'd be voting for actually are.
-
@blakeyrat said:
everybody's given up EVER trying to get a 2/3rds ratification of one even again
How would you go about amending the law so you didn't need a 2/3 majority?
Yeah, yeah. But seriously: Why would you want to?
Daylight saving time in Australia - Wikipedia
