Just in from the Ministry of Truth

[andrewducker]

via johnbobshaun

Comments

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Anything that stops changing the clocks twice a year is an improvement! Don't like it being dark at 8am? Just change your working hours. Instead of working 9 to 5, work 10 to 6. And all year round if it suits you.

[andrewducker]

Doesn't help people that don't have flexitime, or people with kids.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Well no, and it doesn't help people who do night-shifts either.

But what's to stop you changing school hours to sensible times?

The madness is changing the clocks twice a year. Stop that and then adjust your life to suit. It's not written in stone what time people are meant to start work.

And clocks aren't for regulating people - they're for telling the time. ie. where the Earth is on its spin, which you probably know doesn't judder an hour back and forth twice a year.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind I couldn't care less from a personal pov, but you're assuming way more control on the part of the individual over their life than most people in fact have, which I think is a little unfair.

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

Can you put this under a cut, please? Thanks.

(we have always been at war with Eurasia...)

[matgb]

True, but if people have enough support to get MPs to change the law, then there're enough people to ask schools to start earlier or whatever.

If it were down to me I'd mandate UTC for everyone, and tell people to work from local noon for local stuff. Several local schools already vary their opening times a bit, bu tnot for this.

If instead of changing the law to mess around with DST, we changed the law mandating employers and schools took into account local needs when setting hours, and encouraged flexitime, it'd be better overall.

But I can't be arsed to try to write that up into a legislative proposal, don't care enough.

[naath.livejournal.com]

ARGH. People are so fail. You get THE SAME AMOUNT OF LIGHT, the government can do exactly nothing about that.

If you want to be awake during all the hours of daylight available to you then why don't YOU get up earlier and go to bed earlier? And if you don't then, well, don't. Whinge whinge schools whinge - WHO THE FUCK is awake ONLY during school hours? Even when I was a child I stayed up for hours and hours after school! Changing that free-time to being in the morning is not exactly impossible (very hard for me, but then, I don't give a shit about being awake in lots of dark).

[andrewducker]

What a fantastic recipe for having different starting times for different schools, which is going to cause havoc for different workplaces where people have kids at different schools (i.e. all of them).

Standards make life easier, and I'm fully in favour of them for this kind of situation.

[andrewducker]

It's about travel times being when it's light. And having them be the same for everyone, which makes life significantly easier for people who have both children and jobs.

[naath.livejournal.com]

Aberdeen currently gets 7 hours of daylight. It is therefore simply NOT POSSIBLE to go both TO and FROM a full-time job in the daylight (my full-time job requires me to spend 8 hours working per day). They can not have it both ways.

Hell, Cambridge is only getting just over 8 hours; which means it would be a real struggle for me to get my entire work-day including commute into daylight hours (and I am allowed to work whatever strange hours I like).

Besides, travel times shouldn't be the same for everyone. Fucks up the roads. Schools should open at different times :-p

[matgb]

You think standards make life easier, as you life within the standard, withs tandard office hours and standard life expectancies.

Dude, your privilege is showing.

Jennie works weird shifts. I work part time at the school.

Holly now goes to the junior school. It starts at a different time of day to the infants school, and finishes likewise. That's actually deliberate, it makes it easier for the parents with kids at both schools.

It used to be that most factory shifts started not at 9ish, but at 8ish. Parents with kids had to ensure one was on a different shift to another, and saw each other less, just to make sure the kids were covered.

Standards meant that schools couldn't react to majority local shift times, etc.

In my old job, my deputy and I changed our office hours. Rather than both starting at 9 and finishing at 5, she wanted to start much earlier, and normally arrived with the cleaners at 0730, leaving at 3ish. This was because her husband ran a chain of convenience stores, which opened at 6am, so he had to be up. By letting her change her hours, I was helping her.

And, importantly, helping the office, as she could get more work done with important home based contacts first thing in the morning, she knew who she could ring then.

Standardisation makes things easier for those that fit within the standard. They make things much harder for those outside it. Including those with different jobs, but also including those with, for example, medical conditions that stop their circadian rythm working properly, or night owls, or similar.

I'm both of those last by the way, my body clock thinks a day is about 26 hours long.

Most people in full time work don't work standard hours. But a large number of facilities are set up to assume that they do. Changing that mindset would make life a lot easier for a lot more people than for those it would disrupt.

[matgb]

Answered the school point.

But you really think creating an artifical rush hour both directions and forcing virtually everyone to endure longer journeys on congested roads is a good thing?

[andrewducker]

What the hell kind of assumptions are you making here? I said no such thing. This and your previous comment are currently appearing barking mad to me. I have no idea how to engage with you when you're arguing against things that don't resemble anything I'm saying.

[matgb]

Forcing most things to work in a standard working hours environment creates a rush hour.

Many jobs have a 'standard hours' setup, but they don't need it. Indeed, from experience, changing away from standards works better in many cases.

Those whose jobs are not within standard times are hurt by the idea that standards are good. Parents working morning shifts, or evening shifts, have to make special arrangements to deal with school times, etc.

Deciding that having a standard start time for work creates a rush hour, creates congestion, creates problem.

You assert that these standard hours and standard times are beneficial. I am pointing out that you're wrong.

Changing the clocks papers over some problems created by standard hours, but they don't actually solve the problems, and indeed make it much harder for many others.

Much much better to move away from the idea that standard work hours are necessary and good, as they're not necessary, and are only good for some things and some people, currently, the minority of people.

[andrewducker]

So, when I said I was in favour of shifts back and forth happening in synch across the country, rather than separate units changing individually (which I view as catastrophically unworkable), you took that to mean that I thought everyone in the country should start work at the same time?

Really?????

[matgb]

Standards make life easier, and I'm fully in favour of them for this kind of situation.

Standardisation across the whole country can't always work.

The "farmers will suffer" argument that's frequently trotted out is, naturally, bollocks, as cows can't tell the time. But if the milk cart is supposed to start at the same time everywhere, then it'll be late for farms in south devon, and early for farms in scotland, as cows tend to want milking after dawn, local time.

And I've already given an example of having two local schools starting and finishing at different times is advantageous.

I want to encourage more flexitime. Your response was to assert this would create havoc. I disagree and have cited some examples.

Chaging the clocks doesn't help the actual problem. The actual problem is the believe that it's better for most services to start at the same time, every day, in every part of the country.

I believe people should make thier own decisions, working collectively if necessary, but on a local basis whenever possible. People generally know what's better for them than central diktat.

Local schools should be free to set start times to suit local people. They could even be free to allow different shifts for different kids, with evening lessons and similar. That would be perfectly workable, especially at secondary schools.

It would be advantageous to many. I'd much rather move to the idea that everyone is able to work flexibly according to the needs of their work (but not the assumed requirements), than constantly change the clocks in a futile attempt to keep everyone happy and magically create hours of daylight.

[andrewducker]

I want to encourage more flexitime. Your response was to assert this would create havoc.

Nope, didn't say that at all.

People generally know what's better for them than central diktat.

I work in the finance industry. I see what happens without central regulation and standards in place. It's not pretty.

I'm not saying they're necessary for everything, because clearly they aren't. But if you have a situation where you're waiting for a first mover to try something, and doing so makes it harder for both them and the people around them, then you end up with stasis. I've seen repeated situations where everyone knows that a change will improve things, but they also know that doing it alone will give them a massive disadvantage - end result, the change doesn't happen.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Irritatingly, as far as I can tell the proposal is to move the clocks forward an hour all year round, rather than abolishing the madness of twice-yearly clock-adjustment.

[matgb]

Exactly. Thus govt needs to prompt a change. Thus instead of legislating for double summer time, they should create a regulatary/tax system that encourages flexible working as a standard, and move state providded services, such as schools, to a more flexible arrangement.

And I paraphrased "separate units changing individually (which I view as catastrophically unworkable)" as "create havoc", which is I think a fair paraphrase.

Regulations are good. Adam Smith showed that. Regulations that create problems need to be replaced by regulations that solve problems. If the govt took some action to encourage first movers in some way (I care not how) many more would then follow.

Flexible working is a long sought for goal of equality campaigners anyway, that it'd also solve a few other problems, cut congestion for all and remove the need for daft ideas like double summer time are all added bonuses.

[andrewducker]

Thus instead of legislating for double summer time, they should create a regulatary/tax system that encourages flexible working as a standard

Why are those two things contradictory? I currently have a standardised time system _and_ flexitime.

And I paraphrased "separate units changing individually (which I view as catastrophically unworkable)" as "create havoc", which is I think a fair paraphrase.
Yes. If one school switched to BST and one stayed on GMT I think you'd have havoc. You'd switch from everyone in the country grumbling about disrupted sleep for a day or two (the current situation), to people having to rework their childcare arrangements and reorganise significant chunks of their lives whenever this happened.

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

Why's everyone debating the pros and cons and ignoring the point of your original post??? WTF!! that's diabolical press manipulation. And as to the debating - I travel to work in the dark more than half the year anyway so have no real preference although more light at night would be good.

[andrewducker]

Yeah, I know. The point is newspapers telling people what they want to hear. Which is why when people say "Newspapers are dying!" my response is "And?" because so many of them add nothing to the world.

As for daylight saving time - I also have no particular opinion on it. I just don't understand the rampant hatred that pops up from some people whenever it gets mentioned.

[broin.livejournal.com]

If tomorrow your perfect newspaper popped up, what would be in it?

And just for giggles, let's assume it's on paper. Because for all intents and purposes, Reader does me fine otherwise, and my newspaper is technology, toys, game design, usability, Excel, porn, sustainability and a smidgin of activist politics. Which I can't see popping up in paper form any time soon.

[andrewducker]

The Independent does me pretty much perfectly as a general purpose newspaper. I supplement it with all sorts of tech and other news stuff too (tech,SF, politics, finance, news and misc are my categories on Reader), but for basic news coverage it seems generally fine.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I occasionally buy The Guardian, but that's as much to be irritated as enlightened. Online, though, their Comment Is Free is great. And some of their podcasts.

[andrewducker]

The Guardian frequently annoys me, but also frequently has good reporting. I wouldn't buy it, but I have a couple of their sections through Google Reader.

I don't do podcasts, radio and the like has never seemed to work for me.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

You're lucky enough to work in a job where your hours can be flexible - well good for you but don't be patronising about Andy's privilege whilst flaunting yours.

Your deputy knew who she could ring early in the morning - great. But do you think that someone working in a bank would know which of their customers was ok with them ringing early? Or that an electrician would know which of their clients' houses they could drill in without also upsetting their neighbours? Or that snow gritting vehicles would know what time each individual was leaving the house so they could get their street done in time?

Your deputy liked to start early to fit in with her husband's hours, but he couldn't vary his, because people expect convenience stores to open at around that time. It's a standard.

I completely agree that flexible working patterns should be encouraged (and I know that, certainly in Scotland, they are - certainly civil service jobs have to be offered flexibly for people who have dependants). But you have to have a standard in order to have something to be flexible with. I may have misunderstood you but you basically seem to be advocating anarchy, which rarely works for anything, but certainly not time.

L

[broin.livejournal.com]

I really only listen to them when I have a long walk to work. Previously, it was a handy 30 minutes, so listened to the excellent Have Games Will Travel gaming podcast, The Guardian's Tech Weekly, and In Our Time.

If you've not given In Our Time a shot... you might love it.

[andrewducker]

Cheers, I'll stick it on in the background at some point.

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

+1

<screams>Change the working hours, not the time. Don't arbitrarily change stuff just because you have to work from 9 to 5, and can't bear the thought of going to work at 8</screams>

12pm is when the sun is directly overhead, that's how it's always been, it's how it is everywhere else in the world. Why change it?

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

That figures. Never underestimate the stupidity of daylight saving proponents...

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

I'm not assuming that, which is why I mentioned night-shift workers.

But it's the people who want the benefits of daylight saving (as they see them) who should have to adjust their lives to get them. Changing the clocks imposes it on everyone regardless of whether they want it or not.

Plus changing the clocks is very, very stupid. Have an hour a year that repeats itself? How stupid is that?

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

The rampant hatred is due to it being imposed on people. "Here, have some jetlag. Yours sincerely, the government." Unlike newspapers, which you don't have to buy, let alone read, it's very hard to escape the effects of daylight saving.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

It's actually not how it is everywhere else in the world, though it's only a matter of time before it will be. Notice how many countries which once had it have now abandoned it on the map here...

Of course, we now have the technology to allow clocks to know exactly where they are on the planet. So we could create a clock that'd always say it was 6AM at sunrise and 6PM at sunset regardless of where in the world it was or what time of the year it was. That'd be a cool time system!

[spacelem.livejournal.com]

Some hyperbole there, I know, and there are some places (eastern Russia?) where the timelines deviate several hours.

It's just that it makes sense for midday to be 12pm, since that's how it was defined. For some reason we're now more attached to the idea of working "nine to five" than working for an 8 hour period that's conveniently arranged around the cycle of daylight, even though that period would be identical in all respects apart from the name.

Maybe we should just adopt Internet time, and measure everything from one place.