So I once had this friend, and one of /his/ old friends had the perhaps slightly controversial idea of changing time accounting to 25 hour days. He reportedly did concede that this would have an issue of wall days not synchronising with solar days, however he contended that any disadvantages would be more than made up for by having an extra hour each day.
Now, in the UK we have this strange and terrible tradition of changing the timezone twice a year - once forward by an hour in spring (last Sunday of March), and again back by an hour in the autumn (last Sunday of October). The autumn switch turns out to be relatively painless, biologically, but the spring change is a nightmare which takes at least a week to recover from.
So. I think you have probably guessed where this is going. If we absolutely must continue this debacle, perhaps instead of moving the time forward by an hour, we move it back by an hour, for 23 days in a row. Obviously one calendar day would become superfluous to requirements, so we throw away the last Sunday in March each year. People with a birthday on that date get to celebrate for 23 days in a row.-- Loris, Oct 25 2020 Daylight saving time was instituted during WW1 and simply carried on thereafter because it was a bit useful - not massively so, however.
In the absence of a war, and given the prevalence of much better and more ubiquitous artificial lighting, there's no reason why England shouldn't stay locked to GMT/UTC on a permanent basis; and apparently legislation is already in progress to achieve this.-- 8th of 7, Oct 25 2020 So the proposal is to replace a week of slight annoyance and confusion because the clock time is between zero and one hour different from brain time, with a week of utter mayhem because clock time is between 10 and 14 hours different from brain time?-- pocmloc, Oct 25 2020 mayhem[+]-- Voice, Oct 25 2020 What [8th] said. Western Australia has been ahead of the game here, by consistently refusing to adopt daylight saving in the first place.-- pertinax, Oct 25 2020 //So the proposal is to replace a week of slight annoyance and confusion because the clock time is between zero and one hour different from brain time, with a week of utter mayhem because clock time is between 10 and 14 hours different from brain time?//
If changing timezone was symmetrical in biological impact, the proposed approach would be 23 times worse than the current method. But this idea hinges on the fact that it's universally very much easier to adapt in the direction of a fractionally longer day than a shorter one.
//there's no reason why England shouldn't stay locked to GMT/UTC on a permanent basis;//
Well, no reason except for the traditionalists who block most sensible progress. We're lucky the metric system got past them, to be honest.-- Loris, Oct 25 2020 //the proposed approach would be 23 times worse than the current method//
Yes exactly. That might even be an underestimatement.
//much easier to adapt in the direction of a fractionally longer day than a shorter one// is fine for the first few hour adjustments. It's halfway through the cycle when sunrise is not until late afternoon, and then the sun is bright all night and then it starts to get dark about 6am.-- pocmloc, Oct 26 2020 Brexit of course means that we’ll be setting the clocks back to about 1920-- hippo, Oct 26 2020 1815 would be better; the filthy frogs have just had a right drubbing at Waterloo, the Germans aren't unified, and the Royal Navy rules the waves ...-- 8th of 7, Oct 26 2020 //and the Royal Navy rules the waves// - might be a challenge now - have you seen the current size of the navy?-- hippo, Oct 26 2020 Unfortunately, yes.-- 8th of 7, Oct 26 2020 He didn't say which waves they ruled. The wave machine in the middle pool at Southend leisure centre is fairly easy to rule.-- pocmloc, Oct 26 2020 random, halfbakery