> I really dislike this argument of "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning"

My argument is not "I'd rather enjoy the sun in the evening than in the morning", my argument is "From what I can observe, most people would prefer an hour of sunlight at the end of the day rather than in its beginning". This is not about what I think, it's about what most people think.

  > what is the sun going down at 6 really preventing you from doing

Again, my observation is that most people, given a choice of A. having sunlight between 5am and 6am; or B. having sunlight between 6pm and 7pm, would prefer option B, simply for the reason that more are awake during that time.

Did you take a poll, or do you just have the feeling that that is the case? Not to mention, it's a bit weaselly. It offsets the burden of defending the position to "most people".

And it doesn't even matter what "most people" think. "Most people" in this case, would be wrong. Even if it were "most people" and not "most people whose opinions you've happened to remember on the subject because they happen to align with yours".

And it's going to get darker earlier in winter. That's just what it does. People are really just lamenting the lack of daylight hours in general. Because during the winter, few places have sunlight during 6pm and 7pm even if we kept DST year round. What they say they want is sunlight between 5pm and 6pm. And after the clocks roll back, it'll start getting dark soon after 5.

And once again, I ask, for what? Having the sun rise just after 6am is better for everyone. School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer. Better driving when you're waking up. Everything is more in line with your circadian rhythms, etc.

   > And it's going to get darker earlier in winter.

It's summer we're talking about when we talk about DST. There's no DST in the winter.

   > School kids waiting for the bus are safer, kids walking to school way safer.

For several months in the summer, the schools are closed. Other months during DST, the schools start at 08h00 and the vast majority of the kids wake up about seven-ish, to leave their house at about 07h30. It is inconsequential for the kids whether the sun has risen at 06h30 or at 05h30 that day; when they wake up, there's light outside anyway.

For the rest, let me give you an analogy. For several months this coming summer, I am going to give out an hour of free internet[0] each day. This won't interfere with the (paid) one that people are having otherwise. I'm not going to ask the question "would you prefer this hour to be between 05h30 and 06h30, or between 18h30 and 19h30?" but I am going to ask this question instead: What would the majority prefer, in your opinion?

[0] - any useful utility can be substituted: free hour of water, free hour of electricity, etc.

All the schools around where I live start between 7 and 8, which means kids are waiting for busses and walking between 6 and 7.

Sunrise will be at 7:12 tomorrow. Sunrise would be around 8am at the latest if we kept DST year-round.

There is less sun during the winter. That is how it works. Just in general.

Also, whenever we try "year-round DST" we go back to "spring-forward"/"fall-back" because it sucks. Everyone says they want it until they get it. Whereas Arizona has gotten rid of DST and we don't hear anything about them. They got rid of it in the 60s.

The nation should follow suit.

And all of this is outside the fact that time zones in general are more political than practical. Which is another reason people think they want year-round DST. It's because they're probably in the wrong time zone.

I don't know if you follow my argument, which is:

   > DST actually makes most sense in 30-40 degrees of latitude.

I am not arguing for having "year-round DST", nor for not having any DST at all. All I'm saying is this: at 50th parallel, there's plenty of daylight in the summer, and so: people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. At 25th parallel, there's not much variance between summer and winter, so again, people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. It's in between -- or 30 to 40 -- that the summer daytime is both scarce and variable enough to make the twice-a-year change worthwhile.

Regarding your personal situation, I have no idea where you reside or what "the nation" is -- assuming US, I gather you have a "fall-back" change in three days, for a sunrise at 6:15am and up to 7am at the latest? If so, sounds like you've got it all figured out.

Summer daylight is not scarce. Between the 30th and 40th parallel is the bottom half of the United States.

DST exists so that the sun doesn't rise around 5am. And that seems to be what the argument boils down to: "I don't want it bright too early".

The sun is going down around 8pm during DST on the 30th.

If you're arguing to keep doing what we're doing, you've managed to have an even wronger opinion than getting rid of Standard Time.

   > DST exists so that the sun doesn't rise around 5am. 

No, DST exists so the sun doesn't set around 6pm.

   > And that seems to be what the argument boils down to: "I don't want it bright too early".

No, it's not "I", it's about "we the people", and "we the people" don't care as much about "bright too early", rather they care about "dark too early".

Here is a map of the offset between solar noon and civil noon[0]. The blue places have solar noon (sun in its highest position) before their local clocks show 12h00. The red places have solar noon after their clocks show that. The white places have it about the same time.

Several observations:

1. This is without DST. With DST, blue places turn red, and red places turn even more red.

2. The map is kinda outdated, the bluest most populous country -- Turkey -- moved an hour since, so now it's white at the east and red otherwise.

3. Greenland looks the size of Africa, which is a projection issue, in fact it's much smaller, and that's even before we talk about its minuscule population.

4. There are places like Recife in Brazil, where solar noon varies between 11h03 and 11h33, but they still have more than 12 hours of sunlight most of year, and never less than 11:45, so they hardly care.

5. The vast, vast majority of the world would rather have the solar noon after 12h00 -- meaning, more light in the evening than in the early morning. Santiago de Compostella has solar noon at 13h17 at the earliest and 14h40 at the latest, "relocating" around two hours.

6. The bluest city in the USA is probably Boston, and during standard time their solar noon is 11h30-11h59. During DST, it's 12h40-12h50.

[0] http://blog.poormansmath.net/images/SolarTimeVsStandardTimeV...

> It offsets the burden of defending the position to "most people".

Decisions where the only effect is to align something arbitrary with people's preferences can only be made through appeal to the majority.

> And it doesn't even matter what "most people" think.

Yes. Yes it does.

Yeah. DST really boils down to tricking people to wake up earlier. But you can get all that sunshine by waking up earlier yourself at 5am. No need to force an awkward schedule change on everyone.