Hacker News Reader

Comment by putnambr | Hacker News Reader

Not sure about the morning-person thing, but permanent DST would mean that on the shortest days the sun would rise at 9:18am rather than 8:18am. I'd rather the sun rise at 8:18am to help me wake up. I don't have kids, but if I did I'd rather them be walking to school during twilight rather than the pitch darkness of night.

View on HN

Permanent standard time would have been much better. I live in Massachusetts. We have a lot of narrow roads with virtually no street lights. In the winter, it's common for snow or ice to accumulate. Having kids walking to a bus stop and waiting on the side of the road in the dark for the entire winter is a safety hazard.

You're even on the eastern end of the time zone, where the sunrise is comparatively early. There are bus stops in Indiana too.

Hard disagree on this one. Sunrises in Massachusetts are very early, the latest is about 7am for this time zone. Moving the time zone would push that to 8am. But it gets light substantially before sunrise — there’s a solid hour of twilight. You’re not sending your kids to school in the dead of night.

I don't know why you think I'm lying about this or what I stand to gain from doing so. It's not well-illuminated an hour before sunrise here.

There’s nothing to lie about. You’ve never sent your kids to school in all all-DST winter.

Huh? What does sending them to school in an "all-DST winter" matter? I've sent them to school during DST and then during EST. I know how dark it is before the switch over and after. We're not repositioning the earth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com