maratc
Joined 15 years ago
Joined 15 years ago
Of course there is no such thing as "summer" or "winter" in Malaysia, as they are pretty close to the equator. For the same reason, they have about 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness — every day, every season. In this situation, the reasonable options for setting clocks with regards to sunlight are either 6-18, or 7-19. Malaysia went with 7-19 option. "Solar noon" happens in Kuala Lumpur around 13:10, with the earliest at 12:56 (beginning of November) and the latest at 13:27 (middle of February).
In order to do that I would need to drop the kids at 4:50 at the (closed) doors of the school, and it will end very badly very quickly.
> start at 6 so that they can finish work before citizens start calling
How happy you must be to live in a country where you can (still) simply call your public services.
In any case, you’re talking about a societal change which is much broader than just a clock-setting issue.
I need a watch because the kids start school at 8, so they need to be up at 7. This is true whether the sun is already up (June) or not (December.)
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.
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.)
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.
One man's "little known company with no cybersecurity muscle" is another one's "sovereign certificate infrastructure."
Being bad at choosing random numbers is not a crime, I am afraid.
I can imagine them being sued for "securities fraud" (as Matt Levine suggests) but only if they were a US publicly traded company.
How cool are you with the odds of your entire family surviving the next 100 years standing at about 10%?