Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Are you saying that our computer systems are so inflexible that we cannot make them do our bidding? " Yes, of course that is the case. Any non-internet connected clock (microwaves, cars, toys, $10 alarm clocks, wristwatches, etc) will not be able to respond to these types of changes. Calling these computers may be significantly overstating their abilities. "it was about how to get computers to do our bidding - not v…
"Any non-internet connected clock (microwaves, cars, toys, $10 alarm clocks, wristwatches, etc) will not be able to respond to these types of changes." My post about 19th C. timezones and train timetables is about this very point. All these independent systems are independent 'timezones' and that's the problem - and it's a fundamental one! First, closed systems are intrinsically subject to drift and will never really…
Wristwatches are generally accurate and can generally be relied upon. It's not practical or reasonable to say they should be a "last ditch resort" simply because they do not handle legislative corner cases.
All clocks are approximations to some degree, because time and space are relative. This is true of all systems of measurement in science, in general.
It's not possible to have a computer perfectly account for all legislative corner cases for the same reason it's not possible to have a perfect map: Grey areas exist within law and geopolitics. Knowing the time requires knowing map boundaries and which authority controls a given area. For example: Does Ukraine observe DST? The Donbass region?
Furthermore there are practical costs associated with automatic clocks: A GPS, an updating map system and an updating database of time legislation is expensive to implement in terms of hardware, energy, etc.
These are not problems that no one's bothered to implement. They come at a cost which we aren't willing to shoulder, or in some cases are intractably complex social questions with simple pragmatic work-arounds (make the clock dumb and set it to whatever you wish)
In reality, close enough is often good enough. Perfection isn't necessary.