261–270 of 456 posts
Just use variable speed seconds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is mostly (or so I’ve heard) that the drift is relevant for astronomical applications, and they rely on time dissemination which is done in UTC. If UTC decides to start deviating from TAI by dropping leap seconds, those applications will be in trouble. I’m sure that the problem is overblown, but this is the reasoning that was put forward in the past.
People who are using time for astronomical applications will simply have to track the offset if they need to. I'm not sure how that's much more problematic than the current situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok let future generations take the hit. Got ya. Selfish ...
How big of a hit is it on the future generation, they can just change their DST, which already happens every few years anyways?
It seems I've got an unpopular opinion reading the comments here, but having some leap seconds from time to time ensure we are able to manage them. But "no leap second should be added for at least a century" ensures there will be a y2k reckoning every century. Seems short sighted to me, even if it is not a game-changing issue, let's be honest.
Why have them at all? how many people do things where they actually matter? at the current rate it'll be ~9000ad before we hit an hour offset, and we do hour offsets twice a year, so if an hour off is okay why is 1 second off not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure I support your "hot take" — it is hot and requires a lot of contemplation. But that's not the point, IMO. The point is, that there ALREADY EXIST both TAI and UTC. TAI is true monotonic (whatever it means in a relativistic universe) and doesn't make any compromises. UTC abolishes monotonicity in order to keep both the length of a second and the time relationship to the orbital rotation. They both work. Fo…
Eliminating leap seconds was only a half measure. They should have finished the job by adding rockets to the Earth to ensure that its rotation will stay at exactly 24 hours. If they weren't going to do that, then why eliminate leap seconds? Kicking the problem down the road doesn't really solve the problem, it just makes it worse later.
The earth rotate around itself in 23 hours and 56 minutes
I find this off-hand comment dismissive and out of touch. The semi-annual switch from Daylight Savings to "normal" and back again is absurd, and far from not affecting anyone. Studies show that productivity drops for about a week following the change [1], and there is a marked increase in road fatalities after the clocks are adjusted [2].
If anything, this leap second business is what's irrelevant to everybody except a handful of obscure boffins.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/health-news/daylight-saving-can-m...
[2] https://www.boston.com/news/jobs/2016/03/16/daylight-saving-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's really just a tzdata update for the vast majority of computer systems. That package updates several times a year. Get the revised rule in there a decade in advance and you're golden.
> it's really just a tzdata update for the vast majority of computer systems. I don't think you understand how the tzdata works: the tzdata folks only update the contents after the civil authority for a region changes the law . So first you have to get all the law makers to update what the legal statues say and then you "just" update the computer systems. The latter is the 'easy' part, it's the former that's the coor…
Timezone adjustments do not. They are fundamentally a local matter, and just need to be communicated to the tireless maintainers of tzdata, and can happen incrementally any time an area feels local time is too far off solar time.
In 2015 I was working at a "fintech" company and a leap second was announced. It was scheduled for a Wednesday, unlike all others before which had happened on the weekend, when markets were closed. When the previous leap second was applied, a bunch of our Linux servers had kernel panics for some reason, so needless to say everyone was really concerned about a leap second happening during trading hours. So I was assig…
In 2015 I was working at a "fintech" company and a leap second was announced. It was scheduled for a Wednesday, unlike all others before which had happened on the weekend, when markets were closed. When the previous leap second was applied, a bunch of our Linux servers had kernel panics for some reason, so needless to say everyone was really concerned about a leap second happening during trading hours. So I was assig…
Currently software has to be built to accommodate leap seconds. They happen frequently enough that you'll find out within a few years whether your software breaks when time suddenly skips forward or backward. If we kick the can down the road such that eventually we'll need to add a leap minute, we're going to end up with software that was never written to expect time to change in such a way, hasn't had a real world t…
- the measurement of durations.
- the presentation of some timestamp in a way that the reader has some intuition for.
that first purpose won’t be hurt by not tracking leap seconds. actually, a lot of applications will probably more accurately measure durations by eliminating leap seconds.
if leap seconds (or minutes) really are of critical importance, we’ll reintroduce them to the presentation layer. the thing is, very few people can tell the difference between 12:01 and 12:02 without being told the “real” time. so if you’re presenting a time which is “off” by a minute because there’s no leap seconds… does it really matter?