[PATCH] Cite recent review of DST and sleep
* tz-link.html (Costs and benefits of time shifts): Also cite Romigi, Franco, Scoditti et al 2025. Clean up some other HTML and wording. --- tz-link.html | 20 +++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/tz-link.html b/tz-link.html index f19f9aab..5f1989f0 100644 --- a/tz-link.html +++ b/tz-link.html @@ -289,7 +289,7 @@ community, and data distributors downstream. <p> If your government plans to change its time zone boundaries or daylight saving rules, please send email as described in -"<a href="#changes">Changes to the <code><abbr>tz</abbr></code> database</a>". +“<a href="#changes">Changes to the <code><abbr>tz</abbr></code> database</a>”. Do this well in advance, as this will lessen confusion and will coordinate updates to many cell phones, computers, and other devices around the world. @@ -966,11 +966,17 @@ subtropical regions consume more electricity because of <abbr>DST</abbr>.”</li <li>Neumann P, von Blanckenburg K. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0961463X241310562">What time will it be? A comprehensive literature review on daylight saving time</a>. -<em>Time Soc</em>. 2025-01-21. +<em>Time Soc</em>. 2025;34(4):684–745. doi:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0961463X241310562">10.1177/0961463X241310562</a>. -This reviews DST’s effects on electricity, health, crime, road safety, -and the economy, focusing on research since 2010, and concludes that -year-round standard time is preferable overall. +This reviews <abbr>DST</abbr>’s effects on electricity, health, crime, road +safety, and the economy, focusing on research since 2010, and concludes that +year-round standard time is preferable overall.</li> +<li>Romigi A, Franco V, Scoditti E <em>et al</em>. +The effects of daylight saving time and clock time transitions on sleep and +sleepiness: a systematic review. <em>Sleep Med Rev.</em> 2025;84:102161. doi:<a +href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2025.102161">10.1016/j.smrv.2025.102161</a>. +This reviews <abbr>DST</abbr> and <abbr>DST</abbr> transitions, +and concludes that they both harm sleep, health and behavior.</li> </ul> <p>The following medical societies have taken positions on the @@ -985,7 +991,7 @@ supporting permanent standard time</a> on health grounds.</li> British Sleep Society position statement on Daylight Saving Time in the UK</a>. <em>J Sleep Res.</em> 2025;34(3):e14352. doi:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jsr.14352">10.1111/jsr.14352</a>. -This recommends that the UK abolish DST for health reasons.</li> +This recommends that the UK abolish <abbr>DST</abbr> for health reasons.</li> <li>Malow BA. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/45/12/zsac236/6717940">It is time to abolish the clock change and adopt permanent @@ -993,7 +999,7 @@ standard time in the United States: a Sleep Research Society position statement</a>. <em>Sleep.</em> 2022;45(12):zsac236. doi:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsac236">10.1093/sleep/zsac236</a>. -After reviewing the scientific literature, the Sleep Research Society +The Sleep Research Society advocates permanent standard time due to its health benefits.</li> <li>Rishi MA, Cheng JY, Strang AR <em>et al</em>. <a href="https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.10898">Permanent standard time -- 2.51.0
Paul Eggert via tz wrote in <20260302065032.876725-1-eggert@cs.ucla.edu>: |* tz-link.html (Costs and benefits of time shifts): |Also cite Romigi, Franco, Scoditti et al 2025. Ok, unfortunately to note that there is a "European Sleep Research Society", esrs.eu, that is unfortunately linked to by the German Berlin Charité Schlaflabor ("competence center sleepmedicine" in fact, 1:1) [1]. There at the esrs we unfortunately find things like [2], which reiterates insane numbers we also heared here already (but on breast cancer, if i recall correctly), like heart attack risk increase from 4%-29% (i note the measurement tolerance window), and i note in the nice animated image the words "we just wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day". There is also [3], which says, under the headline "Negative effects of daylight saving time on our biological clock and sleep duration" The paper shows that the longer the difference between solar time and clock time (called solar jet lag), the shorter our sleep duration. as well as Patients with delayed sleep-wake phase disorder are particularly affected by this discrepancy, like having a very to extremely delayed chronotype. How they come to The recommendation is to abolish daylight saving time and stick to standard time for better entrainment to solar exposure. It’s important to focus on biology rather than economics when making these decisions for potential future health consequences. i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how "wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day". and for better entrainment to solar exposure. fit together as an argument against DST. I note that i also am pro leapseconds, and we have seen an official paper of the timekeepers that i said to But one may please allow me to again point out how superficial all the argumentation is against the cultural achievement as such. How this miserable document uses the time drift against "sun reality" within timezones, which are often subject to political reasoning per se, to argue against leap seconds. This arguing is false and totally misses the point of the outcome of thousands of years of observation, exploration, and science. Who can count the millions of man-hours of astronomical observation over thousands of years. Who can yet reiterate the satisfaction, and ignited further longing, for each correct forecast and technical improvement. The incredible achievement of being able to very, very precisely and accurately track time as it passes. It is sacrificed on the table of more rapidity on this road to nowehere. Whereas, in reality, what would be needed is the absolute opposite, as your quote shows; accessible solutions exist, but the lowest bidder and similar camalities prevail, as it shows. I find it a bit funny maybe even that [3] also says It’s important to focus on biology rather than economics when making these decisions for potential future health consequences. and conclude that humans seem to need light for mood enhancing and mental health, for Vitamin D production, etc -- actually i am bored! Yes, the known Sigmund Freud for example just had a midday walk in the open air, which possibly should be made available as an option for all human beings thus. But normal people like mechanics etc should at least see some light in the afternoon when they go home, .. or better yet, work times should start much later than 7:30 am, some craftsman even start earlier here, and that is when they start working, let aside the approach to work, so that they see light in the morning. So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier? Say 30 minutes on Saturday, and 30 Minutes on Sunday. Isn't reflection as such a or *the* subject of religion and philosophy? Pour whisky in the baby so that it sleeps all night first, and then that. The society should care, you know. "We now turn the clocks, and beware! tomorrow you will have to drive in daylight when going to work -- why no just take the bus, we have some discounted all-year ticket for that, will you? We do this all together." Or something like that. Unless, and that it is for me, the grotesque and unnatural and very much biased and hypocritical overall situation of people in the west (i blindly guess all that scientific data is only about "global north, west", and selected so it fits) is included -- for example, fracking caused drinking water quality detoriation for entire regions in the united states, as i see it, and all that, smartphone addiction, excessive TV usage, highly refined food, and all of it, i for one cannot believe that a months-in-advance known time switch has so many bad effects. And now comes our Russian friend from Antarctica, and says the penguins there say it simply does not matter, as it is dark for six months, and bright for the other six. Now with Moscow time. So that for granted unscientific context for those masses of studies of often overpaid academics. All in my opinion. The links are official though. (Unfortunately. To say that not being able to sleep is murder, i have read and heard about poor souls who have to do the impossible and deal, through [1].) [1] https://schlaf.charite.de [2] https://esrs.eu/news/sleep-science-friday/daylight-saving-time-myths-facts/ [3] https://esrs.eu/news/sleep-science-friday/negative-effects-of-daylight-savin... --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
2026-03-02 23:09 skrev Steffen Nurpmeso via tz:
i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how
"wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day".
and
for better entrainment to solar exposure.
Because it is true? My body clock tells me to go to sleep at a certain time of day, and then the wake-up clock tells me when to awaken. When I have to adjust the clock, that means one hour less of sleep.
So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier?
Yeah, good luck with that. The *solution* is of course to set the *wake-up* signal to one hour later, and to shift office hours by one hour forward, so to get in to office at 9 am instead of 8 am during DST. That's the only way to properly cope with DST-related jetlag that I have found so far (I have tried, it works very well, the only problem is coping with other people expecting you to be in early). My main gripe is the morning dusk. It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then, but now that we are *just* getting daylight at wake-up we're about to set the hour back an hour, so that we again have to wake up to the despair of blackness. That's the problem. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
On 2026-03-03 08:59 AM, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
2026-03-02 23:09 skrev Steffen Nurpmeso via tz:
i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how
"wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day".
and
for better entrainment to solar exposure.
Because it is true? My body clock tells me to go to sleep at a certain time of day, and then the wake-up clock tells me when to awaken. When I have to adjust the clock, that means one hour less of sleep.
So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier?
Yeah, good luck with that.
The *solution* is of course to set the *wake-up* signal to one hour later, and to shift office hours by one hour forward, so to get in to office at 9 am instead of 8 am during DST. That's the only way to properly cope with DST-related jetlag that I have found so far (I have tried, it works very well, the only problem is coping with other people expecting you to be in early).
My main gripe is the morning dusk. It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then, but now that we are *just* getting daylight at wake-up we're about to set the hour back an hour, so that we again have to wake up to the despair of blackness. That's the problem.
My gripe is more with sunset. Here in Massachusetts, USA "Eastern Time", the day before the "DST fall back" it's dark around 5:30pm, and the next day it's pitch black at 4:30pm. I hate that. Plunged into 'despair of blackness' (I love that phrase. :-)). I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer? If later sunset is the objective it would make more sense to have DST in the winter. But that's not how it's done. DST causes trouble for somebody at both sunrise and sunset. I wonder what might have happened back in 1973 if the USA had gone to "permanent standard time" rather than "permanent daylight time", which was was quickly repealed. Maybe "permanent standard time" would have held?
On 2026-03-03 08:32, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
On 2026-03-03 08:59 AM, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
2026-03-02 23:09 skrev Steffen Nurpmeso via tz:
i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how
"wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day".
and
for better entrainment to solar exposure.
Because it is true? My body clock tells me to go to sleep at a certain time of day, and then the wake-up clock tells me when to awaken. When I have to adjust the clock, that means one hour less of sleep.
So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier?
Yeah, good luck with that.
The *solution* is of course to set the *wake-up* signal to one hour later, and to shift office hours by one hour forward, so to get in to office at 9 am instead of 8 am during DST. That's the only way to properly cope with DST- related jetlag that I have found so far (I have tried, it works very well, the only problem is coping with other people expecting you to be in early).
My main gripe is the morning dusk. It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then, but now that we are *just* getting daylight at wake-up we're about to set the hour back an hour, so that we again have to wake up to the despair of blackness. That's the problem.
My gripe is more with sunset. Here in Massachusetts, USA "Eastern Time", the day before the "DST fall back" it's dark around 5:30pm, and the next day it's pitch black at 4:30pm. I hate that. Plunged into 'despair of blackness' (I love that phrase. :-)).
I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer? If later sunset is the objective it would make more sense to have DST in the winter. But that's not how it's done. DST causes trouble for somebody at both sunrise and sunset.
Up here, we end up getting ~four months a year of driving to and/or from work at "rush" hour, into the sun, around the Southern US based change dates, and they wonder why there are so many collisions with vehicles and pedestrians? If those politicians worked regular hours, they would not be so ignorant of the realities on the road. Including the effects of traffic "calming" and "control" measures slowing traffic, enabling ~75% of drivers to use their phones, so their eyes have to adapt between the dull cabin and the sunrise/sunset, and they can't wear sunglasses, because then they would not be able to see their phones. With pedestrians also using their phones, heads down, nonchalantly strolling onto a crosswalk or into an intersection, confident that drivers will notice them and react instantly to obey the law yielding them right of way. Darwin Awards earned! ;^J
I wonder what might have happened back in 1973 if the USA had gone to "permanent standard time" rather than "permanent daylight time", which was was quickly repealed. Maybe "permanent standard time" would have held?
Permanent "solar" ~standard time zones would avoid most of these issues, instead of businesses and politicians trying to "control" behaviour causing issues. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
<<On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 10:32:20 -0500, Brooks Harris via tz <tz@iana.org> said:
I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer?
Historically, when a large amount of electric power demand was due to lighting (all those incandescent bulbs), it was highly desirable to align working hours with daylight, and DST moves solar noon to 1 p.m., the middle of the working day. Today, when a large amount of electric power *supply* comes from solar energy, having sunset *after* the end of the working day means that the evening peak can benefit from solar energy (particularly of the behind-the-meter variety) which reduces the slope of the ramp and thus the cost to the electric grid. Obviously it's not possible to have sunset after 6 p.m. all year, unless everyone gets up in the dark or we all move to the tropics. Both of these economic benefits only accrue with coordination, and it's much easier as a coordination problem to change clocks than it is to change employment contracts, operating hours, traffic regulations, and so on, all at once. -GAWollman
Garrett Wollman via tz wrote in <27047.22667.186417.310186@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>: |<<On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 10:32:20 -0500, Brooks Harris via tz <tz@iana.org> \ |said: | |> I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than |> natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of |> civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no |> sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we |> naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer? | |Historically, when a large amount of electric power demand was due to |lighting (all those incandescent bulbs), it was highly desirable to |align working hours with daylight, and DST moves solar noon to 1 p.m., |the middle of the working day. | |Today, when a large amount of electric power *supply* comes from solar |energy, having sunset *after* the end of the working day means that |the evening peak can benefit from solar energy (particularly of the |behind-the-meter variety) which reduces the slope of the ramp and thus Now you counteract all the "battery farm" propaganda, dear Garret Wollman. To me it seems that "direct air electrolysers" that use excessive energy from solar and wind to generate hydrogen from air (humidity) many would have liked to see in action years ago, and also compressing air (energy storage) is a very interesting thing, if done right (the chinese seem to have state of the art technique [1,2] with stunning 71% conversion efficiency)A. Of course any conversion looses something. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s44359-026-00150-9 [2] https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202601/29/WS697ab602a310d6866eb36530.html (Of course fuel cell should be it, night-long fights for wording in certain political committees aside (battery cars should never have been it, permafrost unfreezes and they start a race to grab rare earth like lithium in the few still healthy places, with all the massive infrastructural changes, everywhere), and "we" look forward to nuclear fusion for decades, with the "ITER".org hopefully will bring cross-nation scientific results. But "properly" storing renewable energy of all kind is a good thing.) |the cost to the electric grid. Obviously it's not possible to have |sunset after 6 p.m. all year, unless everyone gets up in the dark or |we all move to the tropics. | |Both of these economic benefits only accrue with coordination, and |it's much easier as a coordination problem to change clocks than it is |to change employment contracts, operating hours, traffic regulations, |and so on, all at once. It is just, to me, you know, that we get hammered with such biased or let's say superficial or one-sided or just let's say "lobby-stylish" things all the time. Whereas in reality everything is known to practically everyone since ever. I bet you can ask just any stoneage healer, and possibly even almost anyone who crossed a certain age and had to face certain setbacks. You will die and the drag disappears like that of a ship in the ocean, already in sight. Bhutan had (and still has) a "gross national product", but "gross national happiness". (Quote: ~"not that this means everything is friendly and fine".) All those so-called scientific reports shown here are mediocre; i exclude the ones i cited, because these women at least seem to have a good intent. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
Oh, .. Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in <20260303224526.I5HKxYQ5@steffen%sdaoden.eu>: |Garrett Wollman via tz wrote in | <27047.22667.186417.310186@khavrinen.csail.mit.edu>: ... |[.] dear Garret |Wollman. ... Garrett Wollman, please excuse the false spelling of your name. --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
On 03.03.26 23:45, Steffen Nurpmeso via tz wrote:
grab rare earth like lithium
Lithium is not a "rare earth". It's not even particularly rare. Even so, by now we know enough to replace it with sodium for most uses (if we decide to …) -- no mining required. Getting >70% from compressed air is impressive, but that's stationary. Fuel cells can't go much beyond half that. -- -- regards -- -- Matthias Urlichs
Matthias Urlichs via tz wrote in <a0882120-4753-40d8-9e02-18afca6533f2@urlichs.de>: |On 03.03.26 23:45, Steffen Nurpmeso via tz wrote: |> grab rare earth like lithium | |Lithium is not a "rare earth". It's not even particularly rare. Even so, |by now we know enough to replace it with sodium for most uses (if we |decide to …) -- no mining required. Please look around my text and citate in context. I said they start a race to grab rare earth like lithium in the few still healthy places, with all the massive infrastructural changes, everywhere), so you extract is not only out of context but entirely misses the point, and that is for example the Club of Rome. It is thus not so that "decisioners" would not know. So the lobby itself says A Looming Lithium Deficit A massive supply gap is looming, and projects cannot keep pace. ... Lithium has shifted from specialty metal to the backbone of electrification. Batteries for cars and the grid are the main growth engines, but supply chains weren’t built for this speed. Most raw lithium still comes from three countries, and most refining happens in one - a setup that’s efficient on paper but fragile in practice. This page explains the market in plain language: the demand surge, where supply really comes from, what delays new projects, and how alternatives like DLE from produced water and geothermal brine can ease bottlenecks with a smaller footprint. https://lithiumharvest.com/knowledge/lithium/the-lithium-mining-market/#text... That does not sound like the circular economy that Chancellor Scholz noted in his good (imho) early speech in the Karlsuniversität Prague. |Getting >70% from compressed air is impressive, but that's stationary. It seems to me that for example the entire electricity grid of Europe is interconnected, so i do not truly understand your point. The actual point is that Germans rely too much on their mineral resources, one day they are out and then there is nothing left. And that for example wind turbines around here are more often than not turned off because of lack of electricity needs (and that in Rhein-Main Gebiet, with millions of people and large industries). What nonsense, what failure, what megalomania. No. |Fuel cells can't go much beyond half that. Continue importing Korean and American fuel cell trucks if you want to. ..But to note that Tesla alone produced ~8.5 million vehicles, says Google; now if i take a battery capacity of 60 as an average (too low thus), and if i realize that hybrid cars, then upgraded to fuel cell, have a say capacity of 3 (it is less), than a sane technology could have produced 60/3*8500000 = 170.000.000 cars with the same amount of batteries, or ~8.5 million super heavy trucks (where the buffer battery needs to be larger). All these batteries came from nowhere and fell from heaven. Granted, electric engines require a lot of that super dirty copper, but it surely will be the feature, and everybody knows. A world wide effort on improving fuell cells would have been a sane thing to do, say 35+ years ago. I shortly was hoping when the German U-Boat series came over with fuell cells, before Y2K. Material Research has seen unbelievable improvements. Etc. Hm, when (one of) the war(s) is over, we could also import Russian Kamaz hydrogen busses and trucks; that would be an option. Cool stuff! (Btw less consume is the very best; i think, dependent upon who you ask, that car production amounts to 50 to 70 percent of all the resources that are wasted during an entire car life; these numbers are quite old, and surely were "coined" onto what German car industry believes is average car use (iirc 15000km per year, and such).) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)
On 2026-03-03 10:32 AM, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
On 2026-03-03 08:59 AM, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
2026-03-02 23:09 skrev Steffen Nurpmeso via tz:
i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how
"wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day".
and
for better entrainment to solar exposure.
Because it is true? My body clock tells me to go to sleep at a certain time of day, and then the wake-up clock tells me when to awaken. When I have to adjust the clock, that means one hour less of sleep.
So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier?
Yeah, good luck with that.
The *solution* is of course to set the *wake-up* signal to one hour later, and to shift office hours by one hour forward, so to get in to office at 9 am instead of 8 am during DST. That's the only way to properly cope with DST-related jetlag that I have found so far (I have tried, it works very well, the only problem is coping with other people expecting you to be in early).
My main gripe is the morning dusk. It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then, but now that we are *just* getting daylight at wake-up we're about to set the hour back an hour, so that we again have to wake up to the despair of blackness. That's the problem.
My gripe is more with sunset. Here in Massachusetts, USA "Eastern Time", the day before the "DST fall back" it's dark around 5:30pm, and the next day it's pitch black at 4:30pm. I hate that. Plunged into 'despair of blackness' (I love that phrase. :-)).
I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer? If later sunset is the objective it would make more sense to have DST in the winter. But that's not how it's done. DST causes trouble for somebody at both sunrise and sunset.
I wonder what might have happened back in 1973 if the USA had gone to "permanent standard time" rather than "permanent daylight time", which was was quickly repealed. Maybe "permanent standard time" would have held?
There are many discussions of DST, ranging from energy to safety to sleep patterns, etc. There are two aspects I think do not get enough attentions that argue for "permanent standard time": 1) local timekeeping as per TzDb and downstream systems, where introduction of "permanent daylight time" causes technical difficulties, confusion, and likely unnecessary expense. 2) Some USA federal proposals for "permanent daylight time" actually alter the terms of the 1918 "Calder Act" and the Uniform Time Act of 1966. It seems to me this must have important legal ramifications for nearly every document and procedure that relies on a date and time. Does a change like that alter the meaning of every contract, transaction or schedule ever issued? Save Standard Time https://savestandardtime.com/
I've always used UTC for persistence and let the frontend handle the presentation. Worked 100% of times. Brazil has too many timezones to let this be a problem for government systems on meetings. It was chaos before. *Pablo Santiago Sánchez* Senior Software Engineer, BSc (Hons), MSc (CE) Master in Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare p <phackwer@gmail.com>ablo.s.sanchez@gmail.com / phackwer@gmail.com +353838691070 *"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"* On Fri 6 Mar 2026, 6:59 p.m. Brooks Harris via tz, <tz@iana.org> wrote:
On 2026-03-03 10:32 AM, Brooks Harris via tz wrote:
On 2026-03-03 08:59 AM, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
2026-03-02 23:09 skrev Steffen Nurpmeso via tz:
i do not understand, maybe some of the readers here can explain to me how
"wake up earlier and have more light at the end of our social day".
and
for better entrainment to solar exposure.
Because it is true? My body clock tells me to go to sleep at a certain time of day, and then the wake-up clock tells me when to awaken. When I have to adjust the clock, that means one hour less of sleep.
So if studied academics bring arguments like [2] does, "-1 hour sleep!", then i wonder. How about being *conscious* about the living situation, and go to bed earlier?
Yeah, good luck with that.
The *solution* is of course to set the *wake-up* signal to one hour later, and to shift office hours by one hour forward, so to get in to office at 9 am instead of 8 am during DST. That's the only way to properly cope with DST-related jetlag that I have found so far (I have tried, it works very well, the only problem is coping with other people expecting you to be in early).
My main gripe is the morning dusk. It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then, but now that we are *just* getting daylight at wake-up we're about to set the hour back an hour, so that we again have to wake up to the despair of blackness. That's the problem.
My gripe is more with sunset. Here in Massachusetts, USA "Eastern Time", the day before the "DST fall back" it's dark around 5:30pm, and the next day it's pitch black at 4:30pm. I hate that. Plunged into 'despair of blackness' (I love that phrase. :-)).
I find it curious how we all live by the clock on the wall rather than natural daylight. This of course makes sense since the whole point of civil time it to "coordinate activities", But DST basically makes no sense. Why do we need more sunlight in the afternoon in summer when we naturally have more sunlight in the afternoon in summer? If later sunset is the objective it would make more sense to have DST in the winter. But that's not how it's done. DST causes trouble for somebody at both sunrise and sunset.
I wonder what might have happened back in 1973 if the USA had gone to "permanent standard time" rather than "permanent daylight time", which was was quickly repealed. Maybe "permanent standard time" would have held?
There are many discussions of DST, ranging from energy to safety to sleep patterns, etc.
There are two aspects I think do not get enough attentions that argue for "permanent standard time":
1) local timekeeping as per TzDb and downstream systems, where introduction of "permanent daylight time" causes technical difficulties, confusion, and likely unnecessary expense.
2) Some USA federal proposals for "permanent daylight time" actually alter the terms of the 1918 "Calder Act" and the Uniform Time Act of 1966. It seems to me this must have important legal ramifications for nearly every document and procedure that relies on a date and time. Does a change like that alter the meaning of every contract, transaction or schedule ever issued?
Save Standard Time https://savestandardtime.com/
On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 at 17:01, Pablo Sánchez via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
I've always used UTC for persistence and let the frontend handle the presentation. Worked 100% of times.
I expect most on this list understand that, while this is a fine best practice for persisting past and current timestamps, it is not universally-applicable advice for *scheduling* anything into the future, especially for applications that are *calendaring* items, as local timekeeping rules may change. -- Tim Parenti
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 at 08:59, Peter Krefting via tz <tz@iana.org> wrote:
It's of course not a real problem in summer, then I don't care if sunrise is at 4:00 or 3:00, because I will be asleep by then
I did notice something interesting during yesterday's press conference in British Columbia. A reporter asked why a "permanent daylight time" approach was being taken instead of "permanent standard time". Premier David Eby alluded to the short winter daylight hours at local latitudes: "For British Columbians, having that extra hour of leisure time with the sun at the end of the day…is a very significant difference for their health. It might be different in the United States as you get further south, but for us in British Columbia, when you're already waking up in the dark and taking your kids to school in the dark, getting an extra hour of sunlight where you're still in the dark when you're getting up and taking your kids to school doesn't make as much sense as it does to get that extra hour at the end of the day." Eby's position is that the surveys showed British Columbians prefer "to have that extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day, to have a little bit more time with the sun out with their families at the end of a working day," adding that "the 'shoulder seasons' for hiking and biking and outdoor activities" which are concentrated in the after-work hours would be functionally extended by a month on either end, saying it's "a very important thing in British Columbia." Vancouver gets 8 hours, 11 minutes of daylight at the winter solstice, while Prince Rupert gets 7 hours, 19 minutes. So the opposite attitude can certainly be applied to the winter: "I don't care if sunrise is at 8:30 or 9:30, because either way I'm waking up in the dark." -- Tim Parenti
Tim Parenti:
Eby's position is that the surveys showed British Columbians prefer "to have that extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day, to have a little bit more time with the sun out with their families at the end of a working day,"
I won't say what I think of that opinion, because there might be kids reading this. Anyway,
So the opposite attitude can certainly be applied to the winter: "I don't care if sunrise is at 8:30 or 9:30, because either way I'm waking up in the dark."
in winter, when we here in Oslo have sunrise after 9:00 (standard time), I have taken the habit of not biking to work until after sunrise (working from home for an hour beforehand). Having permanent DST wouldn't help either, it doesn't matter much if sunset is 15:15 or 16:15, it's still dark when I get home from work anyway. It's the morning daylight that is important to get rid of that deep winter depression, at least for me. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
On 2026-03-04 12:57, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
Tim Parenti:
Eby's position is that the surveys showed British Columbians prefer "to have that extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day, to have a little bit more time with the sun out with their families at the end of a working day,"
That may be the majority opinion in urban southwestern BC, but less likely in rural central and northern BC regions. -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada La perfection est atteinte Perfection is achieved non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à ajouter not when there is no more to add mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien à retrancher but when there is no more to cut -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Time changes still frustrate Americans, and the fall shift appears to linger longer https://medicalxpress.com/news/2026-03-frustrate-americans-fall-shift-linger... On 2026-03-04 04:05 PM, Brian Inglis via tz wrote:
On 2026-03-04 12:57, Peter Krefting via tz wrote:
Tim Parenti:
Eby's position is that the surveys showed British Columbians prefer "to have that extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day, to have a little bit more time with the sun out with their families at the end of a working day,"
That may be the majority opinion in urban southwestern BC, but less likely in rural central and northern BC regions.
participants (9)
-
Brian Inglis -
Brooks Harris -
Garrett Wollman -
Matthias Urlichs -
Pablo Sánchez -
Paul Eggert -
Peter Krefting -
Steffen Nurpmeso -
Tim Parenti