I identify as a time radical. We should switch the entire world onto GMT; +/- not a goddamn thing. Is it perfect? I think so, but all those people who might be confused will probably find it a lot less confusing than trying to make sense of the difference between timezones.
There are some time libraries which actually work pretty well and allow you to manage things like Timezones. And then there are some abominations beyond my compression…
Cool, so sunrise is at 8 PM now. Or maybe there’s just no consistent relationship between what a clock on the East and West coast of America say, and a call can’t be scheduled between them.
The real problem with time and date is that it has to fit social and natural systems as well as actual passage of time. A lot of nuance is unavoidable.
Or maybe there’s just no consistent relationship between what a clock on the East and West coast of America say, and a call can’t be scheduled between them.
If you get rid of timezones they all say the same time, no? If you want to schedule a call you just say the time and save the timzone offset fiddling.
The real problem with time and date is that it has to fit social and natural systems as well as actual passage of time.
Can you give any more concrete examples? None come to mind beyond habit, which is not an immutable thing.
The problem is that the date changes in the middle of the day. 00:00 (“midnight”) should occur around the middle of the night, so that one day (sunrise to sunset) has a single date assigned to it.
In my opinion it would make more sense to set 00:00 at slightly before sunrise (roughly 4:00 by my clock), that way one night “belongs” to the day that preceded it. But for whatever reason they decided that the date changes in the middle of the night. That’s fine. Middle of the day would not be fine.
The fact that you give a preference to change something here which you give as an example for something that shouldn’t be changed because it would be problematic is deeply ironic to me.
Also, again, I don’t really see the problem with changing the date in the middle of the day. It’s virtually the same as changing it at 00:00 or 04:00, you change the date once every 24 hours. Right now you have a situation where one persons 3rd of the month could be another persons 2nd or 4th, depending on where on the globe they are. That’s not really ideal either, especially for that call scheduling example by the GP.
Don’t you think it makes sense for the date to change while ~everyone is asleep?
International light-speed communication is what we internet dwellers are used to but it’s not most people’s experience. Most people rarely talk to people from another continent.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I see how it makes sense. I’m just saying that 1) it is arbitrary nonetheless and 2) it doesn’t outweigh the benefits that could be gained by using a single global timezone. Incidence angle of solar radiation is hardly something most people need or even want to track beyond a certain degree (dawn, noon, dusk, midnight), and the times that would coincide with at your latitude and longitude can be easily learned.
I guess I disagree about the benefits of a single global timezone. We already have that for technology to use - the unix timestamp. All potential benefits of a unified timezone could be (and are) gained by having software convert times to whichever timezone you need.
Maybe I’m missing something. What do you think the benefits would be?
We already have that for technology to use - the unix timestamp.
A unix timestamp is an offset to a UTC date, not a timezone. But fair enough, there is UTC. It’s not used by default however, except by scientists and programmers maybe.
Maybe I’m missing something. What do you think the benefits would be?
Removing ambiguity from casual language. Currently when you state a time you are almost always implying your local timezone applies, which might be unknown information to the recipient, especially with written sources like these comments here. With everybody using the same timezone instead you would always make an unambiguous statement about the specific time by default.
Currently when you state a time you are almost always implying your local timezone applies, which might be unknown information to the recipient, especially with written sources like these comments here.
In most people’s everyday life that’s really rare. And when it does happen it’s usually clarified. In more automated contexts (e.g. a scheduled YouTube premiere) the software converts it automatically - the author inputs the date and time in their own timezone, and viewer sees the converted date and time in their own timezone.
When it does happen it reminds us that the date and time falls on a different time of day for different participants.
With everybody using the same timezone instead you would always make an unambiguous statement about the specific time by default.
22:00, midday.
Person A: “Meet me here tomorrow at 01:00”
Person B: “Sure no problem”
… three hours later …
Person A: “Ugh, I told him to be here at 01:00, where is he?”
… 24 hours later …
Person B: “Ugh, he told me to come here at 01:00, where is he?”
And when it does happen it’s usually clarified. In more automated contexts (e.g. a scheduled YouTube premiere) the software converts it automatically - the author inputs the date and time in their own timezone, and viewer sees the converted date and time in their own timezone.
My point exactly though, this is a whole lot of complexity we could just get rid of by using a single timezone, with the added benefit of that working without any automation or clarification. Next Tuesday 14:00? Same time for everybody, regardless of locality. Everyone will know what part of the solar day that is for them by habit.
When it does happen it reminds us that the date and time falls on a different time of day for different participants.
The complexity of coordinating different solar cycles is there either way and unavoidable. So why not use the simpler system?
Meet me here tomorrow at 01:00
Yes, semantic drift in these terms would be unavoidable, but I still see the long-term benefits to clarity outweighing the short-term costs in it.
Anyone who works nights, or an evening job that runs late like a bar or something, is currently used to having the date change in the middle of their “day”. I don’t think it’s really that big of a deal. It would be super weird at first, but kids who grew up with it would find our current system just as bananas as we would find this.
Yeah but you still mentally consider it to be the same day as the preceding day, until you go to sleep. (Unless you stay up all night but that’s very uncommon, my sympathy to night shift workers)
If the date changes in the middle of the day, does that make the latter half of the day “tomorrow” from the first half? That’s absurd to me.
It’s not that simple as people has this urge to associate 12pm to noon and 12am to midnight. Just look at china where the whole country is under a single timezone despite spanning from UTC+05:00 to UTC+09:00. People on xinjiang ended up using their own unofficial timezone (UTC+06:00) for their daily activities instead of using china’s official timezone (UTC+08:00) because it’s inconvenient to them.
people has this urge to associate 12pm to noon and 12am to midnight
Yeah but that is exactly what I mean with habitual. It’s a learned association of questionable utility. It can be unlearned and replaced with 0400 is noon or 1600 is noon based on your longitude just as well. Dawn and dusk are dependent on latitude and have to be learned for anything not smack-dab on the equator anyway.
I can see why that would be inconvenient to people, but I would maintain that is only so due to them clinging to a habit.
It could be worse. What would happen on people that live in UTC+12:00 ? When your friend say “lets meet on Tuesday”, which Tuesday it is (because the day changes at noon)? People will resist such majorly inconvenience changes unless the benefit of switching is clear for them. Forcing unpopular changes will guarantee people using unofficial timezone which cause even more confusion down the line.
What would happen on people that live in UTC+12:00 ? When your friend say “lets meet on Tuesday”, which Tuesday it is (because the day changes at noon)?
Given how +12 is at the front of the “date wave” currently they would probably take it to mean the Monday/Tuesday noon.
People will resist such majorly inconvenience changes unless the benefit of switching is clear for them. Forcing unpopular changes will guarantee people using unofficial timezone which cause even more confusion down the line.
Yeah fair. To me the benefit is clear, there is no good rhyme or reason to timezones as a totality, we should come up with a better system. A straightforward approach like using UTC offsets seems best.
They just gave an example though of people who made up their own timezone because the official one was bad.
These systems exist for people and if no one other than programmers wants to do the internal calculus of “The sun is setting and they’re a quarter of the earths rotation Eastward, so that means they’re probably in bed” every time you want to call someone, then we shouldn’t make the standard that way.
You also get some things that become way more complicated, like “send the user a notification at the start of the normal working day”.
Right now you just look up the timezone in their profile and send it at 9:00, but without timezones, you need a “database of regional conventions for coordinating business hours”, which is just a worse way of having timezones.
Timezones exist because they have a purpose. UTC exists because having some sort of coordinated universal time is helpful and people (outside of Greenwich) don’t use it because it isn’t helpful to them, except in specific circumstances.
It’s like abolishing everything except latin1 because Unicode is a pain. Wanting to write your name in your traditional alphabet is just a habit that people can break.
They just gave an example though of people who made up their own timezone because the official one was bad.
Yeah, and in reply I argued that they did this out of not wanting to change their habit of associating 12 o’clock with noon. Which is in my opinion an understandable impulse but not a good reason to preserve the status quo.
and if no one other than programmers wants to do the internal calculus of “The sun is setting and they’re a quarter of the earths rotation Eastward, so that means they’re probably in bed” every time you want to call someone, then we shouldn’t make the standard that way.
But the standard is like that right now, worse even with DST and other complexities.
Right now you just look up the timezone in their profile and send it at 9:00, but without timezones, you need a “database of regional conventions for coordinating business hours”, which is just a worse way of having timezones.
Well no you need an offset. Like the user has set +8:30 as their offset, so send the notification at 00:30 UTC. That’s not worse than having timezones, that’s having timezones but simpler.
Timezones exist because they have a purpose.
Yeah, and some of those purposes are bonkers.
It’s like abolishing everything except latin1 because Unicode is a pain.
More like getting everyone to use Unicode, but whatever. Like I said I see why it would be unpopular to the point of being unenforceable, but that doesn’t mean an unambiguous way of communicating time as the default would be entirely undesirable.
My point is we have that unambiguous system you want. People don’t use it except in specific circumstances. Instead of saying those people are wrong, you can look at why they don’t use UTC for everything.
People don’t use UTC because people aren’t usually interested in universal time, they’re interested in time of day, which is fundamentally tied to the position of the sun and people’s day night cycles.
The people in China who made their own bootleg timezone illustrate that perfectly.
We don’t currently have to reason about where someone is physically located to know if they’re likely asleep. I’m in UTC-4. It’s 15:30. It’s 19:30 in London. I know the evening is advanced enough that I shouldn’t call my coworker there, but early enough that I can if it’s an emergency. I forgot California’s timezone, so I googled it, and it’s UTC-7, so it’s 12:30 there. I should probably wait half an hour to call to avoid the typical lunch hour.
Otherwise I use a tool to look up and see that solar noon in California is around 20:00, so people are probably doing their midday routines then. Except that California shifted business hours so that they’re offset an hour from solar noon to reduce energy consumption, which I didn’t know.
And what do we do about places like Texas where solar noon varies by more than an hour on different ends of the state? For simplicity, most regions like to synchronize working hours inside their contiguous economic sphere. So I can assume that the state would pass a law relating to what time was considered “convention”, since we need schools, businesses, banks and government services to be consistent inside a jurisdiction.
It’s important we have stuff like that be uniform, because jurisdictions have laws about stuff like preventing teens from working during school hours, or preventing schools from starting class so early it interferes with children’s sleep or staying in session so long it interferes with their evenings.
Texas can just mandate that standard business hours are 14:00 to 22:00.
Thank God they didn’t end up having to mandate that the standard business day is split across two different calendar days like California. Imagine the hell of child labor laws when you have to stipulate that teens can’t work between the hours of 15:00 and 1:00 the next day unless said scheduled interval begins on a weekend.
Business hours being posted as 00:00 - 03:00, 17:00-00:00 for things like Sandwich shops is my favorite though. “I closed for the night today at 3, but I’ll be open again later today in the morning at 17” just has a delightfully complicated inhuman ring to it.
There’s a reason people like their days to line up with their days, and we like to base our clocks around how we live our lives where we are, not where the sun in in Greenwich.
I fundamentally disagree that a system that’s identical to how we work with timezones but non-standard, like a UTC offset system you describe, is simpler than timezones, which are standardized UTC offsets. At best it’s timezones with a different name and more of them.
Latin1 is far simpler than Unicode, and doesn’t have conversion issues. It’s static and very difficult to get wrong. It’s clearly a better match for comparison to UTC-only. It’s only downside is that it leaves everyone outside of a small segment of the worlds population to build their own janky system for dealing with their silly human need to reason about time in an intuitive sense/write their names.
TL;DR - as long as people generally prefer to sleep when it’s dark and wake when it’s light (and they always will in general) time zones are basically needed as a form of lookup table for when to try to communicate with other places.
Well the essay has a lot to discuss, part of which is already (or will be) addressed up and down thread, so towards your TL;DR:
Yes of course, I’m not suggesting to disrupt circadian rhythms. And yes, lookup tables for solar days will always be required, but I would argue this is an inherent complexity to how we measure time in relation to our behavioural patterns and environment. However doing that by using variously large timezones that do not quite match solar days at their edges anyway, with a lot of them changing their offsets by an hour for half the year, and some of them using half-hour offsets throughout the year, that is complexity added for administrative reasons which are partly obsolete and largely irrelevant to the question off what would benefit humanity as a whole the most.
If everybody were to use one single timezone you would memorise your relative offset to noon/midnight pretty fast. Like it’s one number to remember, e.g. where you are 4:40am is noon, 4:40pm is midnight, your offset is -7:20. Having those times be (roughly) 12 (for half the year) is just tradition and something we have every child learn. We could teach them about solar offsets just as well. It’s not even really more complex, arguably much less so since you remove the need to confuse them with the chaos that global timezones have grown to be historically.
Subjective. It seems like it would be a bit confusing, though, if you had to relearn times whenever you travel somewhere (edit: and dates could flip over in the middle of a work day). But maybe you’d prefer that.
If you get rid of timezones they all say the same time, no?
Before they were invented, it was literally just anarchy. People set it to match people they knew. That’s what I was thinking of, but it could also just be one place where noon is at 12:00 PM.
Can you give any more concrete examples? None come to mind beyond habit, which is not an immutable thing.
Well, there’s not a round number of second in a day, or days in a year, for example, since they’re all naturally occurring and arbitrary. And then the Earth turns at a subtly non-constant rate, and people have settled on a seven day week. If you do have timezones, it doesn’t make sense to be inflexible with them when they run up against geography or trade and cultural ties, so they’ll be curvy, and geopolitics will itself change over decades and someone will want to change which one they’re in. All of this is a headache if you just want to do a calendar calculation.
It seems like it would be a bit confusing, though, if you had to relearn times whenever you travel somewhere (edit: and dates could flip over in the middle of a work day). But maybe you’d prefer that.
I’d prefer that over having to change clocks when you travel, and having to have knowledge about the location and possibly having to flip the date when you encounter a reference to a specific time, yes.
Before they were invented, it was literally just anarchy. People set it to match people they knew. That’s what I was thinking of, but it could also just be one place where noon is at 12:00 PM.
Yes, you would obviously do the latter. No sense it going back to the bad old days.
Well, there’s not a round number of second in a day, or days in a year, for example, since they’re all naturally occurring and arbitrary.
Days in a year ok (except leap years). But seconds in a day are round (discounting days with leap seconds). 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400, which is divisible by two. Did you mean they are not based on the decimal system? I’d be up for a decimal based time system and a reorganised calendar, but that wasn’t the topic of discussion here.
And then the Earth turns at a subtly non-constant rate, and people have settled on a seven day week.
Yeah but none of that has much impact on the timezone debate.
If you do have timezones, it doesn’t make sense to be inflexible with them when they run up against geography or trade and cultural ties, so they’ll be curvy, and geopolitics will itself change over decades and someone will want to change which one they’re in.
Fair enough. I acknowledged this point in my other post, that there are historical reasons for timezones mostly rooted in administrative requirements. But I don’t think this is a good reason to not adopt a better system per se.
All of this is a headache if you just want to do a calendar calculation.
Exactly! So out with the old, in with the new. Sure this will create some other headaches, especially given how deeply rooted some of the relevant nomenclature is in most languages, but the sooner we change this the less it will hurt. I see that it might be a non-starter given the inertia and disunity of globalised society working against it, but it still seems desirable nonetheless, to me at least.
Days in a year ok (except leap years). But seconds in a day are round (discounting days with leap seconds). 24 * 60 * 60 = 86400, which is divisible by two. Did you mean they are not based on the decimal system? I’d be up for a decimal based time system and a reorganised calendar, but that wasn’t the topic of discussion here.
Oops, I thought seconds were defined by the meter at some point. Nope, a pendulum 1/40000 of the distance from the pole to the equator just happens to measure the second near-perfectly, but the second stayed defined by astronomical motions until the atomic standard. Still, do to said variability of the Earth’s rotation since then it’s 86400.002, so even if it stopped changing we’d need leap seconds.
The point being that even if you get rid of timezones the calendar will still suck to work with. I question whether we should even have fixed days, months and years, if the time doesn’t relate to the position of the sun in the sky. You might as well just go with Unix epoch, and leave days to be informal. Of course, then you’d have to calculate multiples of 86400 a lot to set appointments. Maybe we need a new decimal second as well.
Yeah, tbh the “no timezones” approach comes with its own basket of problems that isn’t necessarily better than the “with timezones” basket. The system needed to find a balance between being useful locally, but intelligible across regions. Especially challenging before ubiquitous telecommunications
Imagine having to rethink the social norms around time every time you travel or meet someone from far away. They say “Oh I work a 9-to-5 office job” and then you need to figure out where they live to understand what that means. Or a doctor writes a book where they recommend that you get to bed by 2:00PM every night, and then you need to figure out how to translate that to a time that makes sense for you.
We’d invent and use informal timezones anyway, and then we’d be writing Javascript functions to translate “real” times to “colloquial” times, and that’s pretty close to just storing datetimes in UTC then translating them to a relevant timezone ad hoc, which is what we’re already doing.
That’s what my rational programmer brain says. My emotional programmer brain is exactly this meme.
My emotional brain thinks we should just give up and climb back into the trees.
Funny enough, a story just broke about a lunar timezone, which would lose a second or so every year relative to Earth due to relativity. If space travel becomes a big thing we’re going to have to choose a frame of reference, and probably just go with Unix epoch in that frame as the universal time. Hopefully it doesn’t happen to pass through a black hole, because there’s no consistent way to define a frame of reference that’s not subject to gravity.
China uses a single timezone where similar width countries use three or more. So some parts start the day at 8am, others start at 10am
If we used a single timezone in the west it would be UTC which is practically on the other side of the world to me - I’m in +11 now, +10 when we go back to standard time in a week. That would make it reasonably easy here, the clock would be out by near enough to 12 hours (if you prefer light in the evening) that you’d be fine on a 12 hour clock just inverting am and pm
Apart from nearly 2/3 of Americans polled wanting permanent DST, the massive technological advancement, interconnectedness of the entire world, and an ever-growing proportion of renewable energy?
You’re ignoring the fact that technological advancement is exponential, not linear; world interconnectedness; energy storage; and other renewable energy sources such as geothermal, hydro, and wind.
What is in bad faith? I hold the premise that nothing has specifically changed that would make people actually like the sunrise/sunset time change given it was tried before.
You claimed “technology” without giving specific reasons. You claimed renewable energy despite it only being 20% of today’s energy generation.
You are the one who is making bad faith arguments. Then you are getting mad because you have nothing to support your opinion.
That’s a misconception. Farmers lobbied heavily against DST. Their work does not abide by the clock; they milk when cows need milking, and they harvest when there’s enough light, no matter what some clock says.
In Europe, DST as we know it now was first introduced by Germany during WW1 to preserve coal, then abandoned after the war, and widely adopted again in the 70s. In the US it was established federally in the 60s.
This is all glossing over a lot of regional differences and older history. But yeah, US farmers were very much against the idea.
So, this is wrong on so many levels. First of all, DST had nothing to do with farmers, it was to save energy usage in the summer as people were doing more things when the evenings were warmer.
IIRC daylight savings was created way back when electricity really didn’t exist so it allowed the farmers more daylight to harvest their crops.
DST does not increase the amount of daylight on any specific day of the year, it just shifts it later in the day so that people in 8-5 jobs can do more things after work. Farmers don’t work 8-5, they work as needed so if the crops need harvesting they will get harvested based on the weather.
Now with that said there is more technology in today’s farming equipment so DST shouldn’t really exist anymore.
Nowadays farmers have lots of lights and can harvest after the sun goes down, but that has nothing to do with why DST shouldn’t exist. DST shouldn’t exist because it doesn’t save energy due to any populated place having their lights on all night and the actual changing of time leading to negative outcomes like deaths from accidents with no benefits.
Sure, the sun will come up earlier and set later in the summer if we get rid of DST, but the only reason for the time change in the first place was the standard working hours being longer after noon than before.
Farmers don’t care about clocks unless they are scheduling a time to meet and using the clock for clarity.
The sun comes up when it comes up and that is what matters. Farmers don’t care about the clock for what they consider morning, because morning is before the sun is highest in the aky. They are already getting up a few minutes earlier or later depending on whether the days are getting longer or shorter.
This is besides what I was saying, which was again “if anything” and adding another reason why farmers and DST makes no sense. But dude people live in the world. Farmers are not 1000% in their own bubble. They need to go out to stores and get supplies and interact with the world and the supply chain. You are now taking lack of an office schedule or something to a ludicrous degree with your analogy. I wasn’t even disagreeing with your old points, I was saying “if anything” and adding another reason, but you want to go off on seemingly everyone. Perhaps you’re confusing me with the other guy, but whatever. Cheers.
My understanding is DST did still save appreciable energy until we replaced incandescent lights with fluorescent and leds. Longer daylight in the evening when people are awake and less in the early morning when people are asleep means lights aren’t being used as much. The average light bulb used to consume 60 watts or more and also let off significant undesirable heat, so with a house full of lights DST really did cut back energy usage. Now though with led lights low consumption and virtually no heat, it’s not nearly as significant.
Originally being started for WWI and WWII doesn’t contradict my post which talks about the current reasons given to keep it and that it is not saving energy now.
I hate it. I fucking hate it. With every fiber of my being. I spend every winter counting the days until the sun stops setting before I stop working. Our entire lives are scheduled so we are inside under neon light from 9-6, why are we trying to maximize how much of that is during daytime?
On the day that we go back to permanent ST I will turn to hard drugs to make up for the dopamine deficiency. No joke very few things in my life fill me with more dread than having to suffer early evenings for the rest of my life.
Maybe, and hear me out, the problem is that 9 to 6 is the problem, since 2/3 of that time is after noon. Instead of changing reality to appease business, business, work hours could be changed to 8 to 4 with four before and four after which is both more light in the evening than DST and a shorter workday because people are more productive than they ever have been.
But I guess you would rather let business practices determine when noon is for everyone instead of the sun.
Business hours is no more or less of a social construct than DST or the 24 hour clock.
The only difference is that we have a shot at making everyone agree on a timezone shift or permanent DST, but absolutely NO SHOT at getting every business to switch to an 8-4 schedule. None. It’d be a nice sentiment. But it’s not happening, and I don’t care what the number says on the clock when I leave work as long as it’s sunny outside.
Why is it so important that the sun reaches its zenith at noon anyway? Do you often get confused while looking at your antique sundial?
From a development perspective it certainly sounds easier to have one global timezone with DST than a bunch of smaller ones without it. Would that make sense in reality? Probably not but I definitely think timezones take more work to compensate for properly.
What matters is consistency and our time system has tons of crazy inconsistent shit in our. Everyone knows about leap years, but do you know about leap seconds? Imagine trying to write a function to convert unix time to a current date and suddenly all your times are a second off.
Lets just have 2 timezones, Chinese time and EST w/ permanent DST. The most populated timezones for Eurasia and the americas, and they’re both 12 hours apart, so nobody has to do timezone math, just swich AM and PM.
There was actually a really interesting idea I heard to have no time zones. And I actually think it could be a good idea. It’ll never happen because people would need to re-learn time but if it was always the same time everywhere it would make scheduling and business so much easier. No one would need to convert between different zones or be late because of an incorrect conversion. The downside is that times which are conventionally morning or evening etc, would no longer would be so people would have to get used to time just being a construct for scheduling and not a representation of the natural day/night cycle…but it actually doesn’t sound like a half bad idea.
Problem you run into is the areas where we need to tie things to solar days across an area.
You end up with places having to regulate that school starts at 22:00, and gets out 05:00 the next day.
Businesses close for the night at 06:00 and open bright and early later that day at 22:00.
You have places where one calendar day has two different business days in it, so the annoyances faced by people who work overnight shifts spreads to everyone, and worse gets spread to financial calendars, billing systems and the works.
Time is an air bubble trapped under a screen protector. It’s annoying, and you can push it around to try to keep it out of the way, but you can never really fix it.
There’s just too many inherently contradictory requirements for us to end up with a “good” system, and we just need to settle for good enough.
My dream is that we stop changing things. Whatever we have in time zone database today is what we stick with going forwards. No more dst shifts, no more tweaks to the zones, no more weird offsets and shifts, because we don’t get to stop dealing with the old layout when we change, we just add a new one that we think is better.
For the most part, dealing with this stuff is a solved, shitty problem. It’s when we change the rules that problems come up. Worse when we change them retroactively. (Territory disputes between nations have been resolved with the conclusion that land was actually in a different time zone in the past because it was actually in another country. Not a problem usually, unless there’s a major stock exchange in an island that was transferred between nations and retroactively changing what time it was affects what laws were valid at the time certain transactions took place.
Not really. Timezones, at their core (so without DST or any other special rules), are just a constant offset that you can very easily translate back and forth between, that’s trivial as long as you remember to do it. Having lots of them doesn’t really make anything harder, as long as you can look them up somewhere. DST, leap seconds, etc., make shit complicated, because they bend, break, or overlap a single timeline to the point where suddenly you have points in time that happen twice, or that never happen, or where time runs faster or slower for a bit. That is incredibly hard to deal with consistently, much more so that just switching a simple offset you’re operating within.
As I explained in my other comment, there’s no situation where you’re getting any daylight in the evening with DST, that’s just not possible.
Also daylight in the morning sets your day on a high note. The morning you’re spending in the darkness is what turns your life into a winter long depression. Coming home in darkness is inevitable and has a lower impact on your mental health. And with DST effectively removing BOTH morning and evening daylight, you’ll be completely fucked.
Strong disagree, under DST I get to experience some sunlight in then evenings. Under Standard time I get to watch the sun come up through the window and set through the window.
I don’t know what you mean by evening, but it’s already dark at 16:00 during winter. You only get some light in the morning. DST means no more light in the morning and no more light in the evening. Complete depression. DST should not exist.
i still dont even understand what DST even is, as far as i care because i don’t is that DST just means we change the time, because god forbid the time be a little funky.
The real problem is that across the globe there is like 50 different implementations of it. Some places have a fucking half hour, or some goofy shit. Really fun handling time zones with that sprinkled on top.
That’s ST obv. Now let’s convert it to DST, that will be 9:03 - 16:53. Let’s say you work a standard 9-5 job. Well, 9:03 is after you start working and 16:53 is before you finish. Thus you get ZERO daylight during the day in DST. You get almost an hour in the morning with ST.
No wonder Finland has such high suicide rates during winter…
P.S. It is also worth noting that daylight grows the closer you get to the equator and it grows in the morning, not in the evening. You can see from the examples above that their evening difference is smaller than the morning one. There’s just no point having DST.
I’m missing your point. Do you think that moving the clocks is having an effect on the tilt of the earth? Or are you just trying to explain to me how daylength and latitude are related?
I know quite well how dark it gets in the north. I live in the north. Luckily, the sun still rises and sets at very predictable intervals. If I want to enjoy sunlight, I simply need to be awake at some point that coincides with when the sun is up.
You are also aware that not everyone works the exact same hours, right? And windows exist?
Use a different example to make the opposite point: I’d like the sun to be out for at least an hour after I get home from my “9-5”, so if the sun sets at 1700 I’m standard time, I am depressed. But in DST, I get to spend an hour in my garden.
See? The debate is stupid. Do you want more daylight in the morning or afternoon. That’s the only question. The amount of daylight is not affected by clocks.
Wut? If it’s DST during winter, you don’t have any light to enjoy after work. You can only enjoy light in the morning with ST. All the explanation is above, with facts.
There are two common types of laser printers. Those that have special paper that react to heat, such as receipt printers, would fit the description.
The other laser printers… Hm, I don’t think your description is accurate either. It’s more that the laser electrically charges ink particles so that they jump on to a separate roller that gets rolled on to the paper.
I am not aware of any receipt printers using lasers - thermal printers have an array of resistors that get hot when necessary. I know how a laser printer works and it is hard to explain in 12 or so words. Inkjets are way easier, you can just say “squirt squirt oops”. Anyway…
A photosensitive drum gets a negative electrostatic charge.
A laser shining through a rotating prism scans lines across the drum’s surface. This removes charge from parts of the drum that should not be covered in toner.
A high-voltage corona wire inside the toner reservoir charges an amount of toner positively.
The charged drum rotates past the corona wire, getting covered in toner where its negative charge remains.
Paper is pushed against the drum and the powdery toner is transferred to it.
The paper continues into a fuser, a little oven where a heating element briefly makes the toner so hot that it melts, its powder particles making a permanent bond among themselves and with the paper. (The heater is usually stationary and heats the paper from below. The fuser drum that pushes paper against the heater can get sticky and pick up some of the toner, making images repeat down the page. This is the most common failure mode that cannot be resolved through regular maintenance such as replacing the toner cartridge and printing cleaning pages. However, almost all laser printers have a cheap fuser module or its drum available so it is usually worth replacing.)
It’s an accurate description of laser printers. The “powder” in the description are small plastic flakes (toner), and the paper is baked so that powder melts into it.
Receipt printers have no additional consumables beyond the paper. The heat itself is all the paper needs.
The EFF were tracking which printers print the invisible tracking dots, but they gave up because practically all colour inkjet and laser printers do it now. eff.org/…/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-displa…
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.