<BEGIN RANT>

Okay, I admit it's silly but this whole "permanent DST" thing has gotten under my skin. Not the permanent part, but the DST part.

Question: If you have permanent DST how do you define "noon"?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=noon+definition&t=seamonkey&ia=definition

Noon is the point in time when the sun is directly overhead.

I can accept time zones because while they approximate local noon over most of their area at least the time zone definition of noon is based on independent reality, i.e. the position of the sun in the sky. And yes I know that to be strictly accurate all time zones should be exactly 15deg wide over their entire area, <sigh>.

But DST makes the definition of noon independent of reality. It effectively says that noon is not based on what you see with your own eyes but is what the PTB says it is. Since time is one of the four fundamental dimensions of reality (yes I know the meta-physics arguments about reality, I grew up with that stuff) the subliminal message of DST is that reality is whatever the PTB says it is.

The arguments being pushed for permanent DST (more accurately GT - govt. time):

• DST doesn't save energy

• accidents are more prevalent after DST goes into effect

• moral suffers

All of which are caused by DST, are to me better arguments for getting rid of DST not making it permanent.

I'm done, thanks for letting me get that off my chest guys.

<END RANT>