Cuba is skipping its November 1, 2026 clock change and staying on DST until 2027
j / k
|
Down or up a comment |
h / l
|
Previous or next link |
?
|
This help |
[1] https://timeinrussia.com/daylight-saving-russia/ [2] https://www.newsweek.com/the-us-tried-permanent-daylight-sav...
Edit: Updated comment to say "permanent summer time", since "permanent DST" is rather incompatible a statement.
I'd like to imagine a parallel universe where society has decided that given shorter days, as law, working hours must be reduced during the winter period to allow people to wakeup and leave work while the sun is still up. And for those unfortunate ones that work during night shifts the bonuses are significant for their added Vitamin D deficiency and life disruption.
The revealed preference is the opposite. Most people, when given the option for flex time, will start and end work later, increasing their morning sunlight and decreasing their evening sunlight.
Voting works on stated preference, so we'll likely end up with permanent daylight time.
You have to know ahead of time whether people value their sleep over sunlight, or sunlight over sleep, to know which version makes the most sense.
I’d like a single, consistent way to mark time, but that shouldn’t dictate my seasonal schedule and rhythms.
The clock-driven day is one of humanity's greatest inventions. You can't build a spacefaring society on "following the rhythms of nature."
Interestingly, in Ireland, the time definitions are reversed from most places - summer is standard, "Winter Time" is the deviation. This has the effect of aligning the "official" time with mainland Europe (Irish Standard Time = Central European Time) in theory, but never in practice.
Given that, if Ireland were to adopt the EU's plans to drop DST, there's a reasonable chance they could keep summer time.
So "permanent daylight saving time" makes sense to us since we use the term "daylight time" where Europeans tend to call it "summer time."
Still true that DST really just describes the overall time-changing process, just giving some insight into why the phrase makes sense to us.
But 20% of the surface of Argentina should be at GMT-5. It's easier fot transport and communication to ignore it, instead of splinting the country in two time zones in particular because it includes there are only a few big cities there. Anyway, they usually have double summer time but during that period they had triple summer time! There were a lot of complains from Mendoza and other cities there, and for some time we had a few actives time zones.
It was a nightmare to configure the time in the computer, because we didn't have a timezone and Greenland was not making random funny changes. We also canceled one of the switches a week before the date, so whoever is in charge of that in each OS still hate us.
I'm not sure if it's related, but we had very popular TV shows at "midnight".
At the peak of the shift (usually when DST comes into or out of effect) we're either losing or gaining an hour of daylight per week.
Throwing an hour shift one way or the other does nothing for us. And in peak winter the sun isn't up for me until 10 anyway, and it's down by 3, so what are we even saving?
I was a bit surprised when I visited a country in the northern hemisphere in the winter since it's still dark at 7.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/cuba/havana
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/germany/nuremberg
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/finland/oulu
and then you have the east west axis and itnernation collaboration and itnernational teams. which is why europe has a single CE(S)t from spain to poland and everything in-between, except for the apostates on the island.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_zone#/media/File:Solar_ti...
(Spain is effectively using single-double DST, based on the delta from solar)
After the war DST was abolished again, and then reintroduced in 1977 because of the energy crisis.
There has been talk about having permanent (double) summer time again, but the problem is that in winter, sunrise would be around 10 am.
Countries have long singe transitioned from the rural lifestyle and should adjust life and healthcare conditions for a majority, not for minority. A majority of population should get as much daylight as possible, for the best long-term health outcomes.
It should be a pretty simple and easy task for professional statisticians. Compile average outside time for every age and every job cohort, overlay them and we will get a nice graph with two nice normal deviation peaks - morning and evening. Then shift a daylight graph (which would be a single very wide "peak" of sorts) overlaid over that outside time graph by adjusting timezone point/center. Play with it until the area matching on both graphs is maximized and bingo - that's the optimal timezone for a majority of population.
I suspect with AI help it can be done in a week by a tiny team, instead of years and decades of baseless shouting and finger pointing and name calling in press, parliament and random social networks.
If they keep doing it indefinitely, they're looking at some serious profits and boost to GDP.
He even takes it a step further:
“Why settle for turning back time just one hour? Think about how much we f*cked up the world in the past 30 years! Let’s turn time back 30 years and fix that mess!”
But what does matter in Cuba, is Savings.
The country is in shambles, beyond bankruptcy, in cases literally starving. Because of it"international" sanctions. Severe shortages of petrol, water and energy.
So it wouldn't be surprising if, by moving the clock every year in just one direction, petrol, water and electricity is saved. And it wouldn't even be suprising if that actually happens.
https://jp.ibtimes.com/eu-clock-change-plan-stalled-104949
It's better to make a common decison about this, so we are stalled.
Spain is already in the wrong time zone for standard time, and when DST hits, it's two hours off the time we really should have. It's unnatural for daylight to last until 22:00 or nearby in june and july in Spain's latitude. A bit more and we'd end up with some kind of midnight sun, like we were in the Arctic Circle. It's ridiculous.
I mean, it's usually so hot, and getting hotter every year, that you can only go outside somewhat comfortably after nightfall anyway, so I'd actually prefer if it got dark at 20:00 or earlier in the summer, as it should be. On the other hand, it's horribly demoralizing for me when it's almost 8:30 in the morning in mid-october and it's still so dark. Going back to standard time, like we did a few days ago, gives me a brief respite, but unfortunately dark mornings will soon return in a month or so.
That's probably even more of an issue for Spain, made even stranger by the fact that Portugal is in the "correct" timezone.
Even if it was a political decision, as answered on sibling comment, moving east at least makes some sense for the common person.
I dont care when it goes up. What sux is that it goes down too soon. I would gladly take a shift where it goes up later if I get to have more sun afternoon.
Much better than having sunset before 16:00.
Evidence-backed benefits of morning light exposure:
Advances the circadian clock, helping shift the body's biological night earlier. Randomized controlled study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24179293/
Promotes earlier sleep timing and may improve subjective sleep quality. Systematic review of 45 studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30670164/
Improves alertness, attention, and reaction times, although average effects are small. 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis of 150 studies involving 5,401 participants (daytime light, not exclusively morning): https://doi.org/10.1080/15502724.2025.2493669
Helps treat seasonal depression (SAD). Systematic review and network meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials involving 773 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40629637/
Can improve outcomes in nonseasonal depression when bright-light therapy is added to treatment. 2024 meta-analysis of 11 randomized trials involving 858 patients: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39356500/
Natural daylight exposure helps synchronize the biological clock with the solar day. Experimental research found that exposure to natural light-dark cycles advanced circadian timing compared with modern indoor lighting environments: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23910656/
And only very few people are like leisure or outside sport activities in the morning before going to school or work. It is just not that relaxing when you have to watch the clock or take longer shower after.
And Scotland has to have GMT in the winter so that school children don't have to walk to school in the dark. (Suffering and deaths were caused when they experimentally tried UTC+1 in the Scottish winter.)
Therefore, if you want to get rid of clock changes it really has to be GMT for the whole of the British Isles. I think that would work for me. But I'd rather stick with the current system than make any other change, like UTC+1 all year or Britain different from Ireland.
This gets brought up every time the discussion happens, yet we manage perfectly well even further north here in Norway.
Also why should people need government permission to vary the time at which they do things?
As far as I'm concerned I just want the clock to not change every spring and autumn. Institutions can surely be left to decide for themselves what working hours they have? After all shops, cafes, restaurants, bars, etc., already do that.
Yeah, try going to school in Lapland. If school starts at 09:00, you're walking to school in the dark. If school ends at 14:00, you're walking home in the dark.
Closer to their solar time, for quite a few. As an extreme example, most of Spain lies West of the prime meridian (some parts of it even west of Great Britain, the island), but its time zone is an hour ahead of that of London.
It is a misconception, that "noon" is the middle point of your awake time. That was never the case. Our day usage most of the time is asymmetric: start the day and especially the work with the sunlight, spend the evening time off after work after sun set.
Using the high point of the sun as the reference for the daytime is a very practical choice, as this is the one easily observable time point which doesn't move much over the course of the year (a few minutes, but that is symmetric).
This traditionally has been solved in two ways:
1. do the split and accept that you will have costs associated with different time zones and sleep/wake cycles in your population (e.g.: USA / Soviet Russia)
2. don't do the split, and have the cost by putting a time/light adjustment burden on the population (e.g.: PRC, European Union)
My preferred solution would be to abandon all time zones and use something like UTC, or yet better: .beat / Biel Mean Time [1], which does not come with a 'oh, 12 means midday' penalty.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatch_Internet_Time
Which means that
a) textual time references in stories would stop working unless also specifying a location, which would cause a lot of weirdness, especially in fiction
b) perhaps more importantly for day-to-day life, it causes a lot of weirdness around the change of the calendar day and the weekday. It's a rather useful property of the current system that the change of calendar day happens at a time when most people are asleep or otherwise not too fussed about the exact calendar date.
If you completely abolish time zones, that means that for everybody not lucky enough to live near wherever the meridian ends up (which would always be a significant fraction of the world's population, no matter where you'd place the meridian), the change of calendar date would happen during the middle of the waking hours, which causes a lot of weirdness (do public holidays now actually start and stop in the middle of the working day?) and makes date references vastly more cumbersome because a single calendar date can now refer to both solar n in the afternoon/evening and solar date n+1 in the morning.
So you'd have to start using rather awkward double dates for referring to a certain solar day ("the event will take place from the 22/23rd to the 24/25th", "see you on Thursday/Friday" [which isn't the same thing as "see you on Thursday or Friday" today, because that'd become "see you on Thursday/Friday or Friday/Saturday" under the new system properly]), or else develop some convention based on the local solar noon/midnight, which is basically reintroducing time zones through the back door.
I'm quite north (but not the far north) but I'm strongly for DST. If we went for solar time, we'd loose long bright evenings in the summer but have sun at 3am. Spring/fall evenings would be much darker too. I hate time switching. But I'd rather switch then loose DST summer evenings. Otherwise we'd loose a lot of outdoorsy socialising on weekdays
But some people don't go outdoors after work. And they prefer brighter mornings for couple extra weeks. During the winter the mornings are dark with or without DST.
In my personal opinion, the only reasonable decision would be to permanently return to the standard time before the introduction of DST. Because otherwise the whole European timezone would have to be redesigned.
Time has stopped being an astronomical fact, and is a social contract nowadays. It's possible that you can afford to opt out of that contract, but most people can't.
Instead, the public discourse centers around which minority can force the majority to follow their preferred terms in the social contract. At best, it's a zero sum game - most likely, it's a net loss for everyone if we include all externalities, especially the suppression of discussions about more individuality.
(*) DST is not a social contract, it's entirely made up by the law.
The modern society started with the Industrial Revolution, when the people understood that there are some very tangible benefits when everyone starts working at the same hour, and started building around that. This building included discarding "local time" (an astronomical fact) in favour of standard time (social contract.)
There used to be a system in my country where there were large doctor offices and you didn't really have your doctor, as you had your clinic. (I'm not talking hospital, but doctor's office.)
It was staffed around the day. Each doctor had a work life balance and you could come in whenever. I'm pretty sure this approach works for most service professions.
School can be transitioned to be purely online. Watch video lectures when you want and take online tests regularly. There is really no point to lock all kids up at school for hours each day if the goal is merely to teach them. People leave school illiterate these days, so it's not like it could get any worse.
When I was working I worked from 08:00 to 16:00 with a half hour break for lunch. But several of my colleagues in the same office worked 07:00 to 15:00. All of us worked with other engineers in countries across the world. My children went to school at 08:30 until 13:30 until they were in senior high school when it was 08:00 to 15:30
The local buses start running at 05:30 and stop at 22:30.
Medical emergency cover is 24 hours already. Some factories run 24 hours. So do some transport networks.
There would be huge benefits for commuting because traffic would be spread out.
The practical issues have more to do with noise and energy use, not the "social contract."
In any case, you’re talking about a societal change which is much broader than just a clock-setting issue.
There's wanting to work a bit earlier or a bit later than everyone around you but there's a limit to how out-of-sync you can get.
When one can't decide between two roughly equivalent options, there's a really cool way to choose between them! Assign each option to a side of a fair coin, flip the coin, and select the one whose side is face up.
It's really neat how many thorny problems can be either eliminated or made substantially less thorny with the careful addition of some randomness.
It is not roughly the same if the sun rises an hour earlier instead, at 04:30 instead of 05:30.
I don't get up before 08:30 and I will not somehow adjust my schedule by three hours to use the sunlight in the morning.
At the end of the day I lose an hour of sunlight without good reason.
It completely fails when you account for everyone else around you. Could work if you live alone with flexible working hours. But having a semi-active social life and kids makes it impossible.
As a counter-point, I personally don't even notice it. Also, I live in Romania, so every trip West of the border, even just to Hungary, means a one-hour change, so, again, no big deal.
Time zones give a rough idea of where the sun is and whether people are more likely to be asleep or not.
Like I know if I schedule a meeting at 8am in New York, that's 5am in California so I'm unlikely get people from California to attend. Or at least it's pretty rude of me to expect people in California to attend
If I schedule a meeting at 12 UTC - that gives no indication of where the sun is in New York or California (or anywhere).
The fact is people tend to do things with the sun is up and sleep when it's down. Time zones are a compromise so your clock is still kind of in sync with the sun while still being able to synchronize with larger areas.
Or, we could skip the meeting. I won't mind.
So, I can see that how some countries like Spain and Poland might want to make different choices when it comes to losing or keeping the hour permanently as Spain is basically in the wrong timezone. If you want to have noon occur when the sun is highest in the sky, you need to be close to 15 degrees east (roughly the Polish border with Germany).
Much of Spain is technically west of Greenwich (0 degrees longitude). Which means it should be GMT. You could make the same argument about France and the Netherlands being closer to Greenwich than the Polish border with Germany. I'm at 13 degrees east in Berlin, so pretty close.
Countries further north tend to care less about this because most of the year it's either too dark or too light most of the time. I used to live in Sweden and Finland. Daylight saving doesn't do anything useful there. There's not much to save when sunrise is just before noon in the winter and shortly after midnight in the summer. In Helsinki, the sun is already rising around 2am in the summer and it's still dark at 10am in the winter.
I personally am not a fan of playing around switching clock hours, it's annoying every single year and as a result of the clock change I always feel more sleepy during the winter.
just unnecessary pain of switching clocks back n forth twice a year. people should move on from that system.
Sunrise today was 07:31, sunset will be at 16:32 here.
On 22nd December it will be 09:17 and 15:16.
(Unfortunately, it always gets derailed by highly-polarized discussions about whether to stay on DST forever or get rid of it forever. They'll be showing up here again soon enough.)
But can we... uh... can we keep that as some kind of tertiary issue to solve later after we successfully stop screwing up the clocks twice every year? We don't really need to build a singular omnibus clock overhaul that will most assuredly never come to fruition, do we? :)
3 days ago: https://github.com/eggert/tz/commit/5b5b39dae16f787740b8c0d4...
It's not even the latest change to the library!
Some people absolutely loves DST for some reason, but it creates stress and mental problems for people, especially in the north. The long mornings are somehow worse than the short evenings. Technically it shouldn't matter what the clock shows, but when society insists on things happening at a certain time, whether or not the sun is out becomes important.
For the Russian case see: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-28423647
We don't care about the people living in the North, there are more of us living not in North and as we live in a democracy (the EU) the majority vote should cound on this.
It is actually an issue and in some sense I think there is a case to be made for a timezone split between northern Europe and southern Europe. So e.g. putting Scandinavia in UTC +1 and Spain and Italy in UTC +2. Where we draw the line is tricky, because I doubt that nether France or Germany would want two timezones.
There absolutely is. The north is getting very little sun in the winter (about 6 hours) and very much in the summer (about 19 hours), while the south has a lot less variance (10 vs 14 hrs for south of Spain.) My argument would be that the south needs DST more than the north.
I understood that and I genuinely sympathise with the daylight-related syndromes people up there in the North have to deal with, but you also have to understand that further South we also become depressed if the Sun comes down too early, especially in the summer. So from an utility and democracy point of view the wellbeing of the majority (and the vote of said majority) should take prevalence over the wellbeing of the minority.
Or you know, you could just put countries in different timezones. Apparently that's easier than convincing people that the workday doesn't need to start at 8:00 (or 10:00 in the case of many in Southern Europe).
What everyone missed is that DST could itself lead to much greater loss of life than we might have lost had the use of DST been mandated all the way through to e.g. large naval, air or spacecraft.
And as research into DST continues, this seems to have been not merely an abstract possibility was missed, but _the actual outcome_. DST is quite literally killing people by the thousands.
Yehh Europe is loosing its mind..
I belive this whole clock fliopity flip twice a year is a huge contributing factor to people's "unbalance", and worsening mental state... Especially the northern parts....
We humans are creatures of habit... Mess with the circadian rhythm of en entire population and expect no adverse effect.... Mhm checks out.
And it is weak because people are different. Some people tolerate clock change better than others, some people function better in summer time, others function better in winter time. Any decision you make (keep clock change, summer time only, winter time only) will benefit some people and will hurt others. And there is not even strong evidence that one solution is better on average.
For the disruption caused by clock change itself, it is indeed noticeable, like an increase in traffic accidents, but it is just one day, but the effect of being in summer time vs winter time lasts 6 months. So if the clock change makes even a small improvement for 6 months, it may be worth the disruption for 2 days a year. I am not saying there is, it is just that there is no real consensus.
So, by default, when a change may have negative consequence for some people and may not lead to an overall improvement, you don't change.
This is a very European / North American problem for some reason. There are some exceptions, but in general Asia, Africa and South America don't do this.
If you mean "changing the rules a few hours / days before they should be applied", Chile (again) did this a few years / decades ago, and it wreaked havoc: all scheduled meetings were off by one or two hours, you could not rely on your calendar, etc.
Plenty of stupidity going around in Chile / South America, rest assured.
This is surely an exaggeration.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_18_...
I voted to permanently abolish daylight saving time/summer time and am very unhappy that it isn't gone already.
- it needs to be properly announced to all eligible voters
- be declared as binding, you can't tell people it isn't a vote and later on declare it is
- the platform for voting needs to work
Nothing happend. All talk, no action, as I wrote above.
How would something that has been in effect for at least 60 years still lead to a worsening mental state over time?