The creator of DST gets the first slap. Then the timezones asshole.
I'm planning to do a presentation at work on how to deal with dates/times/timezones/conversion/etc in the next few weeks some time. I figure it would be a good topic to cover. I'm going to start my talk by saying "first, imagine there is no such thing as timezones or DST." And then build on that.
Sandford Fleming (the guy who invented time zones) actually made it easier.
Before timezones, every town had their own clock that defined the time for their town and was loosely set such that “noon is when the sun is at its highest point in the sky.” Which couldn’t be measured all that accurately.
If it wasn’t for Fleming, we’d be dealing with every city or town having a separate time zone.
Save a slap for the dude who invented sundials, and another slap for the dude who invented civilization.
Not any more. But some of the IRS guys are smokin' hot, I'm sure, if that's what you're into.
No wonder they never invented time machines to get to the future, if we're so keen on bullying them.
Yes, I agree. Even if we could magically make all computers work with it, shouldn't it logically be the other way? Wouldn't a later sunset in winter be better lol? But yeah, it's dumb either way. If we want to have different hours then shouldn't we adjust our daily routines instead of adjusting our clocks??
I really don't care if it gets dark at 3:30 or 4:40 in the winter. Either way, there is no doing things in sunshine after work. Fortunately, I can use part of the day time for personal things and work later when I get back home.
All in the same time? But... Then the sun might go down at noon. That doesn't make sense...
Wait... Noon? Noooon...
The word noon comes from a Latin root, nona hora, or "ninth hour." In medieval times, noon fell at three PM, nine hours after a monk's traditional rising hour of six o'clock in the morning. Over time, as noon came to be synonymous in English with midday, its timing changed to twelve PM.
Oh now that's worse
We must establish a new order of monks, who all get up at 6am UTC. We can call them in sync
No, see, how it would work without timezones is:
- Everyone would use UTC and a 24-hour clock rather than AM/PM.
- If that means you eat breakfast at 1400 hours and go to bed around 400 hours and that the sun is directly overhead at 1700 hours (or something more random like 1737), fine. (Better than fine, actually!)
- Every area keeps track of what time of day daily events (like meals, when school starts or lets out, etc) happen. Though I think generally rounding to the nearest whole hour or, maybe in some cases, half hour makes the most sense. (And it's not even like everyone in the same area keeps the same schedule as it is now.)
- You still call the period before when the sun is directly overhead "morning" and the period after "afternoon" and similarly with "evening", "night", "dawn", "noon", "midnight" etc.
- One caveat is that with this approach, the day-of-the-month change (when we switch from the 29th of the month to the 30th, for instance) happens at different times of the day (like, in the above example it would be close to 1900 hours) for different people. Oh well. People will get used to it. But I think it still makes the most sense to decide that the days of the week ("Monday", "Tuesday", etc) last from whatever time "midnight" is locally to the following midnight, again probably rounding to the nearest whole hour. (Now, you might be thinking "yeah, but that's just timezones again. But consider those timezones. The way you'd figure out what day of the week it was would involve taking the longitude and rounding. Much simpler than having to keep a whole-ass database of all the data about all the different timezones. And it would only come into play when having to decide when the day of the week changes over.)
- Though, one more caveat. If you do that, then there has to be a longitudinal line where it's always a different day of the week on one side than it is just on the other side. But that's already the case today, so not really a drawback relative to what we have today.
•
You still call the period before when the sun is directly overhead “morning” and the period after “afternoon” and similarly with “evening”, “night”, “dawn”, “noon”, “midnight” etc.
Note that the Sun position is not consistent throught the year and varies widely based on your latitude.
In Iceland (and also Alaska) you can have the Sun for a full 24 hours in the sky (they call it "midnight sun") during Summer solstice (with extremelly short nights the whole summer) and the opposite happens in Winter, with long periods of night time.
I think it still makes the most sense to decide that the days of the week (“Monday”, “Tuesday”, etc) last from whatever time “midnight” is locally to the following midnight, again probably rounding to the nearest whole hour.
Just the days of the week? you mean that 2024-06-30 23:59 and 2024-07-01 00:01 can both be the same weekday and at the same time be different days? Would the definition of "day" be different based on whether you are talking about "day of the week" vs "universal day"?
Note that the Sun position is not consistent throught the year and varies widely based on your latitude.
Good call. The definitions of "noon" and "midnight" would need to be formalized a bit more, but given any line of longitude, the sun passes directly over that line of longitude "exactly" once every 24 hours. (I put "exactly" in quotes because even that isn't quite exactly true, but we account for that kind of thing with leap seconds.) So you could base noon on something like "when the sun is directly over a point on such longitudinal line (and then round to the nearest hour)."
Could still be a little weird near the poles, but I think that definition would still be sensical. If you're way up north, for instance, and you're in the summer period when the sun never sets, you still just figure out your longitude and figure when the sun passes directly over some point on that longitudinal line.
Though in practice, I'd suspect the area right around the poles would pretty much just need to just decide on something and go with it so they don't end up having to do calculations to figure out whether it's "afternoon" or "morning" every time they move a few feet. Heh. (Not that a lot of folks spend a lot of time that close to the poles.) Maybe they'd just decide arbitrarily that the current day of the week and period of the day are whatever they currently are in Greenwich. Or maybe even abandon the use og day of the week and period of the day all together.
Just the days of the week? you mean that 2024-06-30 23:59 and 2024-07-01 00:01 can both be the same weekday and at the same time be different days? Would the definition of "day" be different based on whether you are talking about "day of the week" vs "universal day"?
Yup.
I'm just thinking about things like scheduling dentist appointments at my local dentist. I'd think it would be less confusing for ordinary local interactions like that if we could say "next Wednesday at 20:00" rather than having to keep track of the fact that depending what period of the day it is (relative to landmarks like "dinner time" or "midmorning") it may be a different day of the week.
And it's not like there aren't awkward mismatches beteen days of the week and days of the month now. Months don't always start on the first day of the week, for instance. (Hell. We don't even agree on what the first day of the week is.) "Weeks" are an artifact of lunar calendars. (And, to be fair, so are months.)
(And while we're on the topic of months, we should have 13 of 'em. 12 of length 30 each and one at the end of 5 days or on leap years 6 days. And they should be called "first month", "second month", "third month", etc. None of this "for weird historical reasons, October is the 10th month, even though the prefix 'oct' would seem to indicate it should be the 8th" bs. Lol.)
regarding day change, you could also just have it change at UTC midnight and the entire planet bongs at that time if they're awake.
Bank holidays would be really awkward. You start wort at 23 and the next day is off so you would just have to work that one hour.
Office workers could probably move hours around. It would get complicated for shift workers though. Paying overtime for work on holidays?
What would happen is that unofficially they determine a logical working day to be between 12:00 and 00:00 in US/Central since that maps to 6am to 6pm. In essence, we'd still have timezones but they would not have formal definitions.
My experience is that you start work and the next day is off so you just lock the doors and keep working, but maybe there are financial institutions without backlogs idunno.
Yeah. I figured the day-of-the-month change should definitely happen at UTC midnight. I kindof like the idea that a day of the week lasts from before I wake up to after I go to sleep. (Or at least that there's no changeover during business hours.)
But hell. If you wanted to run for president of the world on a platform of reforming date/time tracking but planned for the days of the week to change at midnight UTC, I'd still vote for you.
One caveat is that with this approach, the day-of-the-month change (when we switch from the 29th of the month to the 30th, for instance) happens at different times of the day
How is this any different for other days of the month. In US/Central (6 hours behind UTC), we would always switch over to the next day at 18:00.
If I'm understanding what you're getting at, I think you're misunderstanding. I wasn't saying the day of the month change would happen at different times of day for different days of the month. I was saying the day of the month change would happen at different times of day for different longitudes. (I said "for different people", though "for different longitudes" or "for different locations" would have been a better way to say that.)
I believe you are correct. I read your statement as meaning when the month changes.
But your explanation also seems backwards. Currently, every timezone changes to the next day at their time. US/Eastern switches days at 4:00am utc (assuming DST) and US/Central follows an hour later. With no timezones, everyone would switch days at the time time 00:00 UTC. It just may be 5/6 hours early than we're used to in US/Central time zone for example.
Well, I do think it's useful to be able to speak in terms of "the period of time from the middle of the dark period of the day to the following middle of the dark period" for conversations with other locals. And that's what I was talking about with regard to the days of the week changing over at "midnight" (that is, the middle of the dark period).
So, if I lived somewhere where the sun rose at 14:00 UTC every "day", I would have to keep track of the fact that the date would change to the next date (from the 19th to the 20th, for instance) every mid-to-late "afternoon". A small price to pay, in my estimation, but still a price to pay.
So, I dunno. Doesn't feel backwards to me. Folks are still probably going to think in terms of their "day". Like from when they get up to when they go to bed. Not in terms of when Greenwich gets up and goes to bed. So I do think it's worth considering things from the perspective of people who just want to make sure they get to work on time so they don't get laid off. And from that perspective, it makes more sense to say "the date changes over one hour before I get off of work" (which is "mid to late afternoon" even though it's UTC 0:00).
You're replacing codified standards for local time with ad hoc conventions like they had before time zones.
No, take tHe NeW jErSeY approach. Keep the implementation simple.
Everyone, everywhere on UTC.
-
7:00 - Everyone wake up at
-
8:00 - Everyone go to school/work 8:00 AM
-
...
-
21:00 - Everyone sleep.
We'll figure out the logistics as we go.
Here's what I would include. I always seem to end up with systems that try really, really hard to send a datetime without a timezone. You should explain to them why its ambiguous. Pick a time between 1am and 2am on the day that DST shifts to standard time. This date has two distinct times that display as 1:15am in local time. We need to know if it was US/Central Daylight time or US/Central Standard Time in order to convert "Nov 3, 2024 1:15:00" to universal time.
Yes, for sure.
Unfortunately, many moons ago before I started working where I currently work, the decision was made that they'd standardize, roughly speaking, on the timezone of the corporate headquarters. (I work in the same timezone as corporate, so that's my timezone. So it's not as bad for me as for folks who work in far-flung locations. But it's still a huge PITA even for me.)
And when I say "roughly speaking", I mean that there's plenty of data we keep in the timezone of the location it pertains to. Like store open/close times are stored in a corporate database in the store's timezone. Which... I guess honestly that makes some sense. (Well, it doesn't make any sense because DST is bullshit, but given that we have to deal with DST, I guess it makes sense to store location open/close times in the store's timezone because they want their open/close times to shift with DST. If we stored those open/close times in UTC, we'd have to do some painful adjustments to account for DST in locations that observe it.)
Oh! And we have RESTful services owned by other teams that when you refer to a location by number and it returns information about the location, it uses the three-letter identifier to indicate what timezone they're in rather than the cities (like "America/Phoenix", or "America/Puerto_Rico", or "America/Denver" or whatever), so we have to have special logic in our applications to be like "if they're in MNT and they're in Arizona then... but if they're in MNT and not in Arizona then..."
Damn. Now I'm ranting. Lol.
So what I hear is that you are storing dateTime values with a timezone and are storing a timezone. They shouldn't be returning MNT for Arizona because they aren't in Mountain time. You could put them in Mountain Standard Time because that is effective what AZ is -- mountain time with no timezone. Of course this isn't the full story because sovereign nations aren't beholden to AZ legislature and they can (and do) run in different time zones (Mountain time with DST).
Hmm?
Google's telling me Arizona is in mountain time. For all locations in mountain time, the service in question returns "MST" (and doesn't adjust to "MDT" for part of the year or anything.)
But Arizona doesn't observe daylight saving's time like the rest of those in mountain time.
Now, if the service in question returned "America/Phoenix" for Arizona locations and "America/Denver" (I think that's right) for mountain time locations outside of Arizona, our code would be as simple as whateverMethodInTheStandardLibraryConvertsToTimezone(dateTime, timezone). But as it is, we have to do something like whateverMethodInTheStandardLibraryConvertsToTimezone(dateTime, state == "AZ" ? "America/Phoenix" : {"MST":"America/Denver","CST":"America/Chicago",...}[timezone]).
Also, I should mention we only have to deal with U.S. states plus Puerto Rico where I work. No UTC+8:45 timezones come into play or anything, at least. Also no locations in, say, the Navajo nation in Arizona currently.
I missed a few words so the first sentence was especially hard to understand.
Honestly, I'd just add a column to your locations table to store the time zone and don't use google's service. If you have a store in Gilbert, AZ, set this column to America/Phoenix. Minneapolis would get America/Chicago etc.
Ha! I think you're still misunderstanding me. (Maybe misunderstanding me more than you were previously.)
We're not using any Google service in relation to the timezones things in question. You said in your post "They shouldn’t be returning MNT for Arizona because they aren’t in Mountain time." The only reason I mentioned Google is because after reading that sentence, I googled to see what timezone Arizona is in (because I thought I remembered it was in mountain time) and my Google search seems to confirm that Arizona is indeed in the mountain time zone.
If you have a store in Gilbert, AZ, set this column to America/Phoenix. Minneapolis would get America/Chicago etc.
Exactly what I'm getting at. They should be using the "America/Phoenix" format for identifying timezones, not "MST". But they use the latter and I don't have any control over the service in question because it's owned by another team. We could nag them, but they don't really have a lot of incentive to make such a fix, so realistically that task would probably die at the bottom of their backlog. My team only consumes data from the service in question. And because it's doing things in that way, my team has to have extra complexity in our code to account for it.
The talk I'm planning to give to my team isn't going to be related to any of that. My team also runs into timezone weirdness, of course, because so does every developer, and a better understanding about such things is definitely going to benefit everyone. That story about the other team using the three-letter abbreviations in stead of, say "America/Phoenix" was just me ranting about how things are done by other teams at the company where I work.
You should be bugging them every day to fix their data. Even if you have to call a new api that returns Olsen timezone names. That way you don't break code that depends on existing internal timezone names.
Is this something that is going to be publicly available? If so, post a link when you have it.
It's pretty simple, actually. A village somewhere in Europe that is completely in the shade all day for part of the year has already proven it.
Mirrors.
We just need a ring of motorized mirrors around the Earth.
At hour 0, the mirrors will rotate to show sun all across the entire Earth.
At hour 12, the mirrors will rotate to put all of the Earth into night time.
That lets the entire Earth have the exact same synchronized time synchronized with the daylight.
The mirrors will block the sun from parts of the earth facing during the night.
The mirrors will constantly be rotating to keep the proper amount of sun light facing each part of Earth as the Earth rotates.
The mirrors will be solar powered.
This will fix it, right?
Now I'm thinking about an ex-programmer supervillain who does this as her big foray into supervillainy
The Year: 2092
The Problem: Timezones are annoying
The Solution: Space mirrors! A series of mirrors in space would rotate to keep the entire planet under a single time zone. A perfect global time system is born!
Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
•
There have been several concepts drawn up about using space mirrors as a way to focus the light from the sun into a deathray
Alternatively, we have this arbitrary standard of 9am means morning, if we share a single universal time, different places would just have a different arbitrary time being the "morning" instead.
Or, we could collectively realize time is but an illusion and transcend this silly problem.
i would aruge that the arbitrary factor of "9am being morning" is entirely to do with the fact that morning is actually a solar time phenomenon, whereas global time does not have the concept of morning, since it is merely imitating the local solar time.
Local solar time being the literal point in the sky that the sun is in.
It gets even funnier if we include people who aren't "normal" I for one, consider noon to be morning.
We could keep the 0 hour as the "middle" of the night and 12 being the "middle" of the day (though I'm not sure if that's really the sun's high spot for the day for any places).
But with fully controlled mirrors, we could make it exactly 12 hours, so we could just then switch to the 0 hour being when the sun comes up.
No, we should educate all devs and fix all broken time API's,...
wait, your solution seems far easier.
obligatory: https://qntm.org/abolish
Before I read this article, I also thought it would be a great idea to get rid of timezones entirely and just use UTC for everything. To quote from the link, (please forgive me for being lazy and not formatting it correctly)
Abolishing time zones brings many benefits, I hope. It also:
- causes the question "What time is it there?" to be useless/unanswerable
- necessitates significant changes to the way in which normal people talk about time
- convolutes timetables, where present
- means "days" (of the week) are no longer the same as "days"
- complicates both secular and religious law
- is a staggering inconvenience for a minimum of five billion people
- makes it near-impossible to reason about time in other parts of the world
- does not mean everybody gets up at the same time, goes to work at the same time, or goes to bed at the same time
- is not simpler.
As long as humans live in more than one part of the world, solar time is always going to be subjective. Abolishing time zones only exacerbates this problem.
Timezones make intuitive sense for humans
UTC / Unix timestamps make intuitive sense for computers
The issue is bridging the gap
Yeah it's just being angry about the fact that the Earth is rotating ball. Wanting to abolish timezones is different from Flat Earth only be degrees.
Sure the "what time is it there?" question goes away, but it's replaced by "what are your business hours?"
Ultimately it will be daytime in one part of the world while it's night in another part of the world. That will always cause problems.
Eh, I think the article blows the situation out of proportion. Overall you're still in the same situation as before. Instead you would just be looking up a timetable of sunrises/sunsets, instead of a timezone chart. It ends up mostly reframing the question from "what time is it there?" to "what time of day is it there?". The real version of "after abolishing time zones" is "google tells me it is before sunrise there. It's probably best not to call right now."
I've been using UTC on my own clocks without issue, and the change is not some completely reality-breaking thing - not anymore than DST. From a matter of personal perspective it just shifts what time correlates to what time of day.
using UTC also simplifies the questions "what times can I call you at?" And "when should we have our call?" since you have the same temporal standard. Even before that, I was scheduling calls with family by stating the call would be at such-and-such time UTC.
The biggest difference is with when the date changes, and I think that ultimately is the hardest pill to swallow, and that's even compared to stomaching the sun rising at 2 AM. Having it change from June 5th to June 6th in the middle of a workweek, or even jumping to another month would bother alot of folks in a significant fashion.
Ultimately it's just a personal practice. No nation is going to abolish time zones if everyone still uses time zones. I just prefer it for various reasons.
If you want your sunrise to be at 12am, go ahead.
If you really want to fix something. Fix months
Between the two, months is much harder. With time, you just set your clocks to UTC. To get months fixed you need mass adoption, rewriting calendar software, etc.
Bold of you to assume people will agree to having sunrises at 9am while some other country gets the privilege of getting it at the usual 6
You're upset that it's sunrise at 06:00 somewhere and not that some other lucky bastard landed sunrise at 00:00?
(that might actually happen over the ocean, I have not checked)
That problem happened because there was no way to travel from town to town quickly so if the clocks were off nobody cared. The trains changed that.
I used to think this way, then it was pointed out to me that, without timezones, we'd be in a situation where Saturday starts mid-workday in some places.
Yeah, timezones are absolutely helpful from a logistics and coordination standpoint. Daylight savings time, though... That nonsense needs to be eliminated. So what if it will be dark well into morning wake hours in the winter, I'd take it over dealing with the time change twice a year.
Anti-DST... The almost accidental political bridge. Kinda funny actually: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-approves-bill-that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent-2023-2022-03-15/
Look at the names of the quotes. Both sides are commenting on how dumb it is.
Then the House got involved.
that-would-make-daylight-savings-time-permanent
fwiw this is by some metrics even worse than switching back and forth
There are good sides to DST, such as coming home “earlier” (by the sun clock but not by the social clock) from school or work and therefore having more hours of daylight during the free time after work. These positive effects may go beyond subjective feelings. A study has shown for example that activity increases with longer evening daylight (Goodman et al., 2014) – albeit with small biological effect sizes (≈6% difference in the daily activity between the Standard Time of the year and DST, adjusted for photoperiod). Interestingly these results of the above study were culture-specific: a significant increase was mainly observed in Europe and to some extent in Australia, while no significant effects or even slightly negative effects were seen in the United States and Brazil.
Fucking duh. This is the sticking point for me, and I am disappointed that the article doesn't mention the effect of latitude here. Very easy for muricans to say "DST is not useful" when these fuckers never get pitch-black night before 6pm or full daylight before 6am ST.
Brussels is on the same latitude as Calgary. ST robs every office worker of one hour of useful daylight. That's it. That's the whole argument for permanent DST. Businesses will not change their opening hours, so permanent ST means a net loss of one active hour in the day for every office worker. Permanent DST in Europe means someone working 9-6 would not have to drive home at night for 4 months of the year and could maybe even take the dog for a walk in the evening sun.
Not sure what you mean. My position is that daylight saving time should be abolished entirely. You linked an article about a push to move permanently on to daylight saving. I pointed out how that is actually a bad idea.
I just linked it to show the rare piece of bipartisanship. I agree DLST should be done away with. As to which schedule to keep, I find it to be 6 of one and half dozen of another. The difference is just another nit pick someone will find excuses to argue over.
The difference is just another nit pick someone will find excuses to argue over
No, it isn't. The scientific research actually suggests that keeping DST is worse than switching back and forth. I have to admit I find that confusing, since a lot of the specific studies I've looked at concentrate on the effects caused by the switchover itself, but the meta-analysis doesn't mince words:
In summary, the scientific literature strongly argues against the switching between DST and Standard Time and even more so against adopting DST permanently.
timezones are absolutely helpful from a logistics and coordination standpoint
They're a downside from a coordination standpoint. If everyone was on UTC, you could say "the meeting is at 04:00" and everyone, anywhere in the world, will know when the meeting is. In the real world, you have to say "the meeting is at 2pm AEST" and then someone in AEDT will have to think "oh, that's 3pm for me", and someone in American EST will have to convert to UTC and then convert to their time. It's a huge pain.
So what if it will be dark well into morning wake hours in the winter
That's not something that DST does. It would be something that switching to year-round DST would do, but permanent standard time doesn't change winter hours at all. It can mean you might have dark mornings (especially early and late summer—after the switch to DST and before the switch back to standard time), depending on how far west you are in your time zone and how far away from the equator you are. That's the main thing DST does: swap bright mornings for bright afternoons in summer. Which is kinda silly considering it's done at the time of year when afternoons are already bright for the longest. It's also very harmful to public health.
But... We have UTC already, so calculating the difference is a non-issue. If you got rid of timezones, you'd still end up creating it in all but name since the vast majority of business will be occurring during daytime hours around the world. For example, an office in Tokyo sending emails to their NYC office at 0800 UTC (currently 0400 EDT in NYC) wouldn't end up getting answered for at least 3-4 hours when those employees started logging in. In other words, people would still be doing calculations in their heads to know when business hours are in that region, essentially recreating timezones.
As for your second paragraph, I agree, and I did have it backwards, thanks for the correction. In the summertime where I live, the sun has risen by roughly 0530 and sets around 2100. In the wintertime, the sun is rising around 0700-0730 and setting around 1630-1700 at its shortest daylight hours. Like you said, staying at standard would mean in the summertime we'd have brighter mornings, but curtains and shutters exist for a reason. Personally, I think having it still be bright out at 2030 is kind of annoying.
For some offices, tech like Teams/Outlook would certainly help, sure. But the majority of offices aren't using that. But even still, people would do it regardless. Say you're going on vacation and want to know when daylight hours are, you'd still be doing the same thing. Timezones may be annoying, but they ultimately make sense. We have a universal time for the planet powering the system, there's really no reason to change it, in my opinion.
Eliminating time zones doesn't make scheduling meetings easier it just changes the language. Instead of figuring out what time it is elsewhere you have to remember what normal working hours are, Europe, US, and Japan aren't all going to be available 9-5 UTC. It's just as easy to suggest a meeting at functionally midnight without time zones.
I'd argue not every job will always be 9-5, so you still get people having to explain working hours with non-UTC timezones anyway, whereas all timezone conversions are eliminated if everyone uses UTC.
Yeah you're absolutely right that it does create a tradeoff. My experience has just been that I'd usually consider it a worthwhile tradeoff. In general, the number of people who have to deal with setting meetings is lower than the number of people who attend meetings, especially when you take into account multinational companies.
And when you're attending a meeting, you only care about knowing what time it has been scheduled for already. It's in scheduling that you have to work out when is going to be best for your audience, and I'm of the opinion that the distinction between "what time is this in my time zone and their time zone?" and "where does this time sit in relation to their working day?" is net neutral. With one aspect being a strict positive and the other being a net neutral (in my opinion), I think it still wins out and becomes worthwhile.
•
I have never really understood why people care so much about the change.
You will just wake up one hour later or earlier twice a year, so what? I do that multiple times a week, twice per year isn't too bad.
I'd say the people in that 24% have a quite valid reason to care.
You obviously don’t suffer from a sensitive circadian rhythm. To that I’d say, lucky you. But there are plenty of people who do suffer. And by the time they finally get used to the time change, it’s time to change again. It’s vicious and disruptive; to more than just scheduling. It has a direct (negative) impact on physical and mental health.
•
Fair enough. Personally I and many others in northern Europe (and other places far from the equator) feel depressed in winter due to the highly reduced sunlight so removing DST isn't just as obvious as "people will feel better", because DST at least in theory helps with that.
Edit: lol people are really mad about this 😂
Yeah, Seasonal Affective Disorder is a recognised medical condition and its symptoms get worse the further from the equator you live. Don't know why folks are downvoting you for having it.
People who work night shifts already experience this. It's not as disorienting as it seems.
Assuming you used UTC as the shared time zone, 00:00 on Saturday would start at what is today 4pm in US Pacific Standard Time. So you'd finish work at 01:00 Saturday.
On the other hand, you wouldn't resume work until 17:00 on Monday.
So you're not losing any weekend time.
•
Fuck days! We should all just use epoch and that's it.
Wanna meetup at 1719853000
Sure! What time?
Around 900?
Great!
And they meetup on roughly 1.7.24 17:12:00 GMT
•
It could have been worse. The romans had the day divided into 24 hours, like we do, but the hours varied in length so that from sunrise to sunset, you would always have 12 hours.
Imagine if that was the agreed upon time system, and we had to program that into computers.
It’s called temporal hour. Many cultures around the world had such a time system. Like in Japan they made clocks and watches that could tell temporal hours called wadokei.
fr i keep saying this and nobody seems to think it's a good idea.
Fuck timezones, me and my homies operate on UTC.
I say we ditch this nonsense altogether and go back to vague descriptions of the Sun's position in the sky.
No it doesn't. "Time zones around the world are expressed using positive or negative offsets from UTC, as in the list of time zones by UTC offset."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time
Time now in UTC is 10:33, no matter where on the planet you are.
I'd fuck with atomic time, but at that point i want a perfect calendar system also.
Ive been using utc personally for over a year and i use it in context of vrchat since it yields one less necessary conversion to other people's timezones because only the offset is needed (as opposed to memorizing both offsets, which is much harder because of that nasty nasty daylight savings and its weird anomalies) but they still hate it and tell me to use a "normal" timezone lol. I had gotten 1 person to switch. And she since switched back. Shit don't work in practicality but I'm still gonna use it out of stubbornness
Go play EVE Online. The servers used to have (still, do I think, but shorter) daily downtime that was scheduled using UTC and it led to everyone using UTC since the game server itself used that time.
if i can't have anything nice, you can't have anything nice, and only the people who can't have anything nice will have something nice >:)
There's dozens of us! Yeah practically it's almost entirely an aesthetic effect. I've kept it that way and haven't had any problems from it, though.
One of my favorite T-shirts. https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/23763923-utc-or-gtfo
(I am not affiliated in any way with this shop)
Timezones are fine to program around.
DST is a bit of a pickle to plan around, but can be done just fine by a computer program.
Historical dates; considering leap years, skipped leap years, and times when leap years weren't a thing or when humanity just decided we skip a bunch of years; are the bane of all that is good.
I hear timezone names can also be a slight issue at times, some Australians call the eastern time zone EST. Leap years aren't so bad at times either though. Kind of agree with the rest of it, much of the complexity is from historical dates.
Timezones are kind of a necessary evil though, because without them then you'd have to check regions (or zones) to see if 1PM in China is the same thing as 1PM in Australia is the same thing as 1PM in Bolivia.
Even then, 1pm in Beijing is something different than 1pm in the Tibet since all of China is technically one time zone.
Aren't time zones quite straightforward? You add a whole number of hours and for some a half. Compare that to a sundial on the one side and having times that don't match your day at all on the other, I'd say it's good
You add a whole number of hours and for some a half
Or three quarters in a few cases.
And of course there are cases where countries spanning as many as 5 "ideal" time zones (dividing the globe into 24 equal slices) actually use a single time zone.
And then when someone tells you the meeting is at 10:00 am, you have to figure out if they mean your time zone or theirs, and if they mean theirs, you then have to convert that to yours. Oh, but your conversion was wrong because one of you went into or out of daylight saving time between the day when you did the conversion and when the meeting took place.
But what is the alternative? Sure, fck daylight saving. Having the date changed at noon is fucked up, too, and that's what happens if you agree to one global time. And having countries that are too big for a time zone is fucked up as well. Russia for example actually only spans to the Ural mountains, everything to the east are colonies. Fuck states in general #nobordersnonations
I personally would prefer if we all used UTC. My working hours would be 23:00 to 07:00. A Brits working hours would be 09:00 to 17:00, and a New Yorker would work 13:00 to 21:00.
But this does have its own drawbacks. Personally I just think those drawbacks, in the sorts of real-world time-related conversations I've had, are less than the drawbacks of dealing with varying time zones.
But yeah, the biggest factor is daylight saving time. Doing away with it is the number one option places that use it should take, regardless of whether one advocates for abolishing time zones or not.
im a proponent of using exclusively UTC for anything pertinent to being accurate, and then using local solar time (the sun) to refer to everything else, it has the benefit of making people look outside anyway.
The drawbacks are many and the benefits are few.
Watching foreign films would be a pain, where is this in the world again, what does 19:00 mean for them? More exposition, or you just have to guess based on languag and accent.
I need this work done by our team in XYZ country, what are their working hours? (wow, look at that, still using timezones?)
When you arrive somewhere on holiday, now you have to get a sense of the time there. Or continually be thinking "what's that in my home time?/what's that in solar time", which is why solar time just makes more sense.
People aren't going to stop thinking in solar time, ever. We're hard-wired to be awake with the sun. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, you will associate them with the sun. The question then becomes, would we rather all use roughly the same numbers (timezones, what we currently have), or different numbers (everyone using UTC).
Using UTC solves only 1 problem, you can say verbally to someone across the world, let's make the meeting 15:00 - but this is already easily solved by using a calendar which converts for you...
There's a reason we have never used a single non-solar time, it's just worse and I think there's a reason these posts always end up on programmer focused places on the internet. Yes, I'm sure their job is annoying, and it would be easier to not have to solve time conversion problems, but the time conversion problems wouldn't even go away if you forced everyone to use UTC. You'd just start having to do conversions to solar time, or looking up waking hours (which is just timezones)
This is a solved problem.
I think there’s a reason these posts always end up on programmer focused places on the internet. Yes, I’m sure their job is annoying, and it would be easier to not have to solve time conversion problems, but the time conversion problems wouldn’t even go away if you forced everyone to use UTC. You’d just start having to do conversions to solar time, or looking up waking hours (which is just timezones)
Which is short sighted considering it is much easier to make a standardized library for converting time zones than it is to make a standard library reflecting what different time numbers mean in different places around the world. If they somehow convinced people to make the change, they would find out pretty quickly they were better off with the devil they knew.
I agree planning around it is stupid, but I don't see how that affects computer programs.
(let me clarify, this seems like an everyone-issue, rather than a developer-issue)
IMO the problem for developers is that they have to provide general solutions, so they have to cover each case all the time instead of just a singular case at a time.
you have to program a meeting that reoccurs between DST observant & non observant states in the US and australia.
Good luck.
Not if the place doesn't do daylight savings time, and not all places in a timezone will do that (least in North America) so you need extra code if they do or do not. It becomes a pain after awhile when you do it in multiple projects. Technically one extra setting but it's still a pain to make sure it's handle properly in all cases, especially when the previous programmer decided to handle it for each case individually, but that's a different issue.
Also when you deal with the times, say in .Net you gotta make sure it's the proper kind of date otherwise it decides it's a local system date and will change it to system local when run. Sure it's all handled but there are many easy mistakes to make when working with time.
I probably didn't even get to the real reason, I sort of picked this up on my own.
To be fair, they did say "and for some a half".
Though that misses the Kathmandu, Eucla, and Chatham Islands, which are all :45.
oh you sweet summer child, what you don't know is going to come back to haunt you forever.
Obligatory video when it comes to time zones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY
Inagine going back hundreds of years to convince everybody in the world to use the same time. "No I know not everybody has a clock, but if you could consider sunrise midday that would make my job in the future much easier."
The reason we have timezones is because of the railroads. Before the railroads came in, every town would have its own time, typically set so noon is the time when the sun is highest in the sky. This really wasn't a problem, as back then it didn't really matter that the time was different in every little burg.
Then the railroads came in. They needed things running on a coordinated time table out of necessity, and having every town with its own time was unworkable. I'm sure the railroads would have loved running everything off of the same clock everywhere because that would be simple. But people were too used to noon being the middle of the day, so instead we got the compromise of having timezones so that the railroads can still run on a coordinated time table, but also so that noon is still approximately the middle of the day as people were used to.
So the solution is just go back to the 1800's and convince the railroads that timezones are actually silly and that they really should run everything based upon UTC. And if people want rail service to their town, they can just deal with not having 12PM being when the sun is highest in the sky.
Well, UTC didn't exist in 1800, it would have been GMT, and that might not have been too popular so soon after the war of independence. Even if you convinced all of the USA to use one time zone for the railways, it would be different elsewhere and you'd still get time zones.
Maybe you'd get further with the project with the airlines in the first half of the twentieth century, but I'm not sure that that level of internationalism would have gone down well in a rather war torn world.
It’s only bad when used incorrectly. Just store time in UTC and convert it to timezone of your setting to present it. Most modern languages offer a library that makes it just one more line of code. Not only it’s then clear and unambiguous, it supports all timezones.
Doesn't always work, especially if you need to work with any sort of calendar or recurring schedule.
Yeah, timestamps should always be stored in UTC, but actual planning of anything needs to be conscious of local time zones, including daylight savings. Coming up with a description of when a place is open in local time might be simple when described in local time but clunkier in UTC when accounting for daylight savings, local holidays, etc.
An Instant represents single point on the universal time line. This can always be converted to LocalTime and vice versa. For periodic jobs, you calculate the next occurrence in the local time and then save it as an Instance (UTC).
bingo. Timezones became easier when I learned that all apps and databases should have all times be in UTC. Let the UI do it's thing and accept local time and convert it, and vis versa.
At least most of us don't need to worry about time dilation caused by relatively yet. Have fun with that, space faring developers.
We kinda do, with GPS satellites that have to correct their clocks due to the effects of gravity and speed
And communication with space probes
I fucking hate timezones. Whatever it is, I'd rather read the current clock as 4 a.m. even if it's noon than have timezones.
Well you can. Just switch your clock to UTC and you're done. You won't even have DST to deal with.
Dates and times aren't that hard—honestly!
Video is a lecture about how to think about dates and times, through the lens of a specific open source .NET library designed to aid with applying that thinking. It points out how most languages' standard libraries really work against you, because they conflate different concepts. For example, an Instant (a specific point in time, globally recognised) and a LocalDateTime (a date and time in a way that is irrespective of your location—for example you might want your alarm to wake you at 8:00 am on weekdays, and still do that if you move to a different time zone), a ZonedDateTime (a date and time tied to a specific location—like if you want to say "the meeting starts at 10:00 am Oslo Time"), and an OffsetDateTime (a date and time tied to a specific UTC offset—which is not necessarily the same as a time zone, because "Oslo Time" is a time zone that doesn't change, but its UTC offset might change if they go in or out of DST, or if a place decides to change, like how Samoa changed from UTC-11 to UTC+13 in 2011.
These are all subtly different concepts which are useful in different cases, but most libraries force you to use a single poorly-defined "DateTime" class. It's easier and requires less thought, but is also much more likely to get you into trouble as a result, precisely because of that lack of thought, because it doesn't let you make a clear distinction about what specifically it is.
His library is great for this, but it's very worth thinking about what he's talking about even if you don't or can't use it. As he says in wrapping up:
You may be stuck using poor frameworks, but you don't have to be stuck using poor concepts. You can think of the bigger concepts and represent all the bits without having to write your own framework, without having to do all kinds of stuff, just be really, really clear in all your comments and documentation.
Worst is when someone fucked up the DB time configs at some point and you have datetimes in a column that fall during the “nonexistent” hour in which clocks skip ahead for DST, and you have to figure out what the fuck actually happened there, and where in the data pipeline tz data was either added or stripped (sometimes it’s both, and sometimes it’s not just once), and undo the timestamp fuckery.
Source: did that this week. Was not super awesome.
The notifications in one of our systems is aligned with UTC because it needs to be for a whole bunch of background services to function. Periodically (every couple of years) someone raises a ticket to complain that the time of their notifications is an hour out, and the 2nd line support worker will think "well that's easy, I'll just change the server time to BST". This then brings this whole suite of applications to a crashing halt as everything fails.
I don’t know what the hate is unless you are trying to store time as a String property. There a special place in hell for all developers who do this.
IMHO, all you really need to know is an Epoch time stamp and whether it’s localized to the viewer or the creator… Not that complex. The problem with time zones is that politicians keep changing them
Honestly, I’d rather give the creator of NULL a slap.
I’m probably going to get a lot of hate for this, and I do recognize there have been problems with it all over the place (my code too), but I like null. I don’t like how it fucks everything up. But from a data standpoint, how else are you going to treat uninitialized data, or data with no value? Some people might initialize an empty string, but to me that’s a valid value in some cases. Same for using -1 or zero for numbers. There are cases where those values are valid. It’s like using 1 for true, and zero for false.
Whomever came up with the null coalescing operator (??) and optional chaining (?->) are making strides with handling null more elegantly.
I’m more curious why JavaScript has both null and undefined, and of course NaN. Now THAT is fucked up. Make it make sense.
To offer a differing opinion, why is null helpful at all?
If you have data that may be empty, it's better to explicitly represent that possibility with an Optional<T> generic type. This makes the API more clear, and if implicit null isn't allowed by the language, prevents someone from passing null where a value is expected.
Or if it's uninitialized, the data can be stored as Partial<T>, where all the fields are Optional<U>. If the type system was nominal, it would ensure that the uninitialized or partially-initialized type can't be accidentally used where T is expected since Partial<T> != T. When the object is finally ready, have a function to convert it from Partial<T> into T.
Ignoring the fact that a lot of languages, and database systems, do not support generics (but do already support null), you’ve just introduced a more complex type of null value; you’re simply slapping some lipstick on it. 😊
Or just implement null as a separate type, as php does. Then you have to accept string | null (or its shorthand, ?string) if you want nulls.
In a discussion about whether null should exist at all, and what might be better, saying that Optional values aren't available in languages with type systems that haven't moved on since the 1960s isn't a strong point in my view.
The key point is that if your type system genuinely knows reliably whether something has a value or not, then your compiler can prevent every single runtime null exception from occurring by making sure it's handled at some stage and tracking it for you until it is.
The problem with null is that it is pervasive - any value can be null, and you can check for it and handle it, but other parts of your code can't tell whether that value can or can't be null. Tracking potential nulls is in the memory of the programmer instead of deduced by the compiler, and checking for nulls everywhere is tedious and slow, so no one does that. Hence null bugs are everywhere.
Tony Hoare, an otherwise brilliant computer scientist, called it his billion dollar mistake a decade or two ago.
It's all down to typing system. In PHP, providing null to string argument is a TypeError. You have to use ?string. Same in Typescript in strict mode. In Java, you can happily use null for everything without typesystem catching it.
NaN is a float standard thing, every language that implements floats has NaN.
In my 18+ years as a PHP developer, I never once knew (at least afar as I can recall) that PHP supported NaN. TIL.
What’s wrong with NULL? How else can you differentiate between not having a value and having a blank value?
The problem isn't having empty values, it's not tracking that in the type system, so the programmer and the compiler don't have any information about whether a value can be null or not and the programmer has to figure it out by hand. In a complex program that's essentially completely impossible. The innocently created bomb that causes your program to crash can be in absolutely any value.
There are ways to track it all by disallowing null and using optional values instead, but some folks would rather stick with type systems that haven't moved on since the 1960s.