Debate:Daylight saving

So I think it's a waste of time and counter-productive. Any thoughts?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing the clocks twice a year is indeed counter-productive. However, personally, once the change is done, I like the modified daytime, when it stays bright longer in the evening (I don't care for mornings, I'm usually still half-asleep then anyway). So, if DST is absolished, then I think my area should shift one timezone eastwards, i.e. effectively permanent DST ;) Octo8 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede that it might be better for social activities, but the usual argument made in its favour is cost saving. And I don't believe it.  Though from your comment I suspect that you are not buying it either.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Which argument is used depends on when and where DST was introduced, but yes, costs is the more persistent one. I have watched a... I think it was a youtube video, not sure, that argued that the argument might have well held true when DST was consistently introduced in the world, because lightning costs were that much higher back then, at least of a percentage of overall running costs of a facility or town, but that this just isn't the case anymore. Maybe DST still saves some money, but nowadays probably much less than it costs due to the time changes. Octo8 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll make a prediction - those that are more in favour live further north. This Brit from 53 degrees north will gladly put up with the way that all my clocks are changed by computer in favour of (a) long summer evenings ( we don't get dark until past 22:00 in June ) and, (b), daylight at 09:00 in winter. The year that Britain stuck with BST it was chaos in the morning rush hour because it was so dark so late. Conversely, if we stuck with GMT what use is 03;45 sunrise to man or beast? Placeholder (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)