I don’t give the first two half-flaccid thrusts of a reluctant pity fuck what number the clock says when the sun rises or sets. 4, 5, 6, 11, don’t care. It’s the practice of changing the clocks twice a year that needs to die in a fire.
The logic should be “Let’s open our business from 7 to 4 instead of 8 to 5 so that we have more free time during sunlight hours in the evening” not “Let’s change all the clocks everywhere so that the sun is two fingers higher in the sky when the clocks say 5 so that we have more free time during the sunlight hours in the evening.” You want to vary YOUR routine with the seasonal change in sunlight hours? Great. “Summer hours 7 to 4, winter hours 8 to 5” or whatever. Managing this by changing all clocks everywhere causes more problems than it solves. I don’t know if I could intentionally invent a stupider solution to the “problem.”
You think that because it’s how you feel or you have different stats on opinions taken from large samples in an unbiased fashion that lead you to believe this?
I think it depends on where you are in your timezone if you prefer DST or standard time. But most people seem to not like changing the clock. It just turns into a fight if we should stay on DST or standard time year round.
Of those 62% that indicated they would like to get rid of the practice of changing the clocks entirely, exactly half of them prefer the option of later sunrises and sunsets, as in year-round daylight-saving time, compared with 31% preferring year-round standard time.
The way statistical sampling works, 1000 people in a population of 300,000,000 is actually good enough for most things. You can play around with numbers here to convince yourself, but at 95% confidence 1000 people will give an answer to within 3% of the true answer for the 300,000,000 population.
I mean, yeah, 1000 people is enough assuming there’s no sampling bias. But if you’ve got sampling bias, increasing the sampling size won’t actually help you. The issue you’re talking about is unrelated to how many people you talk to.
Your own suggestion of splitting up the respondents by state would itself introduce sampling bias, way over sampling low population states and way under sampling high population states. The survey was interested in the opinions of the nation as a whole, so arbitrary binning by states would be a big mistake. You want your sampling procedure to have equal change of returning a response from any random person in the nation. With a sample size of 1000, you’re not going to have much random-induced bias for one location or another, aside from population density, which is fine because the survey is about USA people and not people in sub-USA locations.
Why do you want the sun to set early?
I’d rather have an extra hour of sun after work than an hour of sun before work
I think most people enjoy DST. Most complain when it’s dark at 5 pm.
I don’t give the first two half-flaccid thrusts of a reluctant pity fuck what number the clock says when the sun rises or sets. 4, 5, 6, 11, don’t care. It’s the practice of changing the clocks twice a year that needs to die in a fire.
The logic should be “Let’s open our business from 7 to 4 instead of 8 to 5 so that we have more free time during sunlight hours in the evening” not “Let’s change all the clocks everywhere so that the sun is two fingers higher in the sky when the clocks say 5 so that we have more free time during the sunlight hours in the evening.” You want to vary YOUR routine with the seasonal change in sunlight hours? Great. “Summer hours 7 to 4, winter hours 8 to 5” or whatever. Managing this by changing all clocks everywhere causes more problems than it solves. I don’t know if I could intentionally invent a stupider solution to the “problem.”
This has been the thought in my head when the argument comes up. Glad I’m not alone.
Preach on brother!
You can make summer time the regular time you know. Removing dst is about getting rid of changing the clocks twice a year.
“Summer time” is DST
If you removed DST, we would always be on standard time.
What you are saying is make DST permanent, not removing DST
You think that because it’s how you feel or you have different stats on opinions taken from large samples in an unbiased fashion that lead you to believe this?
If it’s the former please see https://paylesspower.com/blog/beyond-the-clock-exploring-the-nations-pulse-on-daylight-saving-time/
If the latter, please consider sharing your data.
I think it depends on where you are in your timezone if you prefer DST or standard time. But most people seem to not like changing the clock. It just turns into a fight if we should stay on DST or standard time year round.
https://www.businessinsider.com/daylight-saving-time-polling-shows-americans-utterly-divided-2023-3
Ahh, yes, 1002 people is a large sample size, like .003% of the population.
Your article is also about switching. Doesn’t say anything about if people would prefer to stay on DST or standard time.
The way statistical sampling works, 1000 people in a population of 300,000,000 is actually good enough for most things. You can play around with numbers here to convince yourself, but at 95% confidence 1000 people will give an answer to within 3% of the true answer for the 300,000,000 population.
If the 300m people lived in the same area and you got a true random sample.
Sunsets at 9:09 today in Michigan
Sunsets at 8:04 today in California
Sunsets at 8:34 today in North Carolina
Sunsets at 7:57 today in Alabama
Sunsets at 7:38 today in Arizona (They are on standard time)
Sunsets at 7:13 today in Hawaii
Sunsets at 11:36 today in Alaska
Someone in Arizona might want the sun to set at 7:38. It’s blazing hot all day.
Someone in Michigan might be fine with sunsetting at 8:08 with standard time.
Someone in Alabama might not want the sun to set at 6:57.
Someone in Hawaii probably doesn’t want the sun to set at 6:13.
Even if you split up the 1000 people to equally represent all states, that’s only 20 people per state.
I mean, yeah, 1000 people is enough assuming there’s no sampling bias. But if you’ve got sampling bias, increasing the sampling size won’t actually help you. The issue you’re talking about is unrelated to how many people you talk to.
Your own suggestion of splitting up the respondents by state would itself introduce sampling bias, way over sampling low population states and way under sampling high population states. The survey was interested in the opinions of the nation as a whole, so arbitrary binning by states would be a big mistake. You want your sampling procedure to have equal change of returning a response from any random person in the nation. With a sample size of 1000, you’re not going to have much random-induced bias for one location or another, aside from population density, which is fine because the survey is about USA people and not people in sub-USA locations.