904
Worst is UTC vs GMT
(i.ibb.co)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
904 points (94.9% liked)
Programmer Humor
32576 readers
868 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, timezones are absolutely helpful from a logistics and coordination standpoint. Daylight savings time, though... That nonsense needs to be eliminated. So what if it will be dark well into morning wake hours in the winter, I'd take it over dealing with the time change twice a year.
Anti-DST... The almost accidental political bridge. Kinda funny actually: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent-2023-2022-03-15/
Look at the names of the quotes. Both sides are commenting on how dumb it is.
Then the House got involved.
fwiw this is by some metrics even worse than switching back and forth
Fucking duh. This is the sticking point for me, and I am disappointed that the article doesn't mention the effect of latitude here. Very easy for muricans to say "DST is not useful" when these fuckers never get pitch-black night before 6pm or full daylight before 6am ST.
Brussels is on the same latitude as Calgary. ST robs every office worker of one hour of useful daylight. That's it. That's the whole argument for permanent DST. Businesses will not change their opening hours, so permanent ST means a net loss of one active hour in the day for every office worker. Permanent DST in Europe means someone working 9-6 would not have to drive home at night for 4 months of the year and could maybe even take the dog for a walk in the evening sun.
You realize there are places without it, and they're fine, correct?
Not sure what you mean. My position is that daylight saving time should be abolished entirely. You linked an article about a push to move permanently on to daylight saving. I pointed out how that is actually a bad idea.
I just linked it to show the rare piece of bipartisanship. I agree DLST should be done away with. As to which schedule to keep, I find it to be 6 of one and half dozen of another. The difference is just another nit pick someone will find excuses to argue over.
No, it isn't. The scientific research actually suggests that keeping DST is worse than switching back and forth. I have to admit I find that confusing, since a lot of the specific studies I've looked at concentrate on the effects caused by the switchover itself, but the meta-analysis doesn't mince words:
They're a downside from a coordination standpoint. If everyone was on UTC, you could say "the meeting is at 04:00" and everyone, anywhere in the world, will know when the meeting is. In the real world, you have to say "the meeting is at 2pm AEST" and then someone in AEDT will have to think "oh, that's 3pm for me", and someone in American EST will have to convert to UTC and then convert to their time. It's a huge pain.
That's not something that DST does. It would be something that switching to year-round DST would do, but permanent standard time doesn't change winter hours at all. It can mean you might have dark mornings (especially early and late summer—after the switch to DST and before the switch back to standard time), depending on how far west you are in your time zone and how far away from the equator you are. That's the main thing DST does: swap bright mornings for bright afternoons in summer. Which is kinda silly considering it's done at the time of year when afternoons are already bright for the longest. It's also very harmful to public health.
But... We have UTC already, so calculating the difference is a non-issue. If you got rid of timezones, you'd still end up creating it in all but name since the vast majority of business will be occurring during daytime hours around the world. For example, an office in Tokyo sending emails to their NYC office at 0800 UTC (currently 0400 EDT in NYC) wouldn't end up getting answered for at least 3-4 hours when those employees started logging in. In other words, people would still be doing calculations in their heads to know when business hours are in that region, essentially recreating timezones.
As for your second paragraph, I agree, and I did have it backwards, thanks for the correction. In the summertime where I live, the sun has risen by roughly 0530 and sets around 2100. In the wintertime, the sun is rising around 0700-0730 and setting around 1630-1700 at its shortest daylight hours. Like you said, staying at standard would mean in the summertime we'd have brighter mornings, but curtains and shutters exist for a reason. Personally, I think having it still be bright out at 2030 is kind of annoying.
For some offices, tech like Teams/Outlook would certainly help, sure. But the majority of offices aren't using that. But even still, people would do it regardless. Say you're going on vacation and want to know when daylight hours are, you'd still be doing the same thing. Timezones may be annoying, but they ultimately make sense. We have a universal time for the planet powering the system, there's really no reason to change it, in my opinion.
Eliminating time zones doesn't make scheduling meetings easier it just changes the language. Instead of figuring out what time it is elsewhere you have to remember what normal working hours are, Europe, US, and Japan aren't all going to be available 9-5 UTC. It's just as easy to suggest a meeting at functionally midnight without time zones.
I'd argue not every job will always be 9-5, so you still get people having to explain working hours with non-UTC timezones anyway, whereas all timezone conversions are eliminated if everyone uses UTC.
Yeah you're absolutely right that it does create a tradeoff. My experience has just been that I'd usually consider it a worthwhile tradeoff. In general, the number of people who have to deal with setting meetings is lower than the number of people who attend meetings, especially when you take into account multinational companies.
And when you're attending a meeting, you only care about knowing what time it has been scheduled for already. It's in scheduling that you have to work out when is going to be best for your audience, and I'm of the opinion that the distinction between "what time is this in my time zone and their time zone?" and "where does this time sit in relation to their working day?" is net neutral. With one aspect being a strict positive and the other being a net neutral (in my opinion), I think it still wins out and becomes worthwhile.
I have never really understood why people care so much about the change.
You will just wake up one hour later or earlier twice a year, so what? I do that multiple times a week, twice per year isn't too bad.
"...there was a 24% increase in heart attacks on the Monday following the switch to daylight saving time [in 2024]."
I'd say the people in that 24% have a quite valid reason to care.
You obviously don’t suffer from a sensitive circadian rhythm. To that I’d say, lucky you. But there are plenty of people who do suffer. And by the time they finally get used to the time change, it’s time to change again. It’s vicious and disruptive; to more than just scheduling. It has a direct (negative) impact on physical and mental health.
Fair enough. Personally I and many others in northern Europe (and other places far from the equator) feel depressed in winter due to the highly reduced sunlight so removing DST isn't just as obvious as "people will feel better", because DST at least in theory helps with that.
Edit: lol people are really mad about this 😂
Yeah, Seasonal Affective Disorder is a recognised medical condition and its symptoms get worse the further from the equator you live. Don't know why folks are downvoting you for having it.