Brooks Harris wrote: > On 2017-01-31 08:21 PM, Steve Summit wrote: > > I feel like I should apologize for my earlier contribution to it, > > which presented a nice-looking, persuasive-sounding argument > > which now looks an awful lot like it's... wrong. > > Not at all. Its an informed contribution. And I think it's not "wrong". > At least not yet. I think its "right", so far. :-)
On further reflection, I think we're all right. For every let's-look-at-the-arithmetic argument that suggests we should use the "new" offset during the leap second, I can come up with one which suggests the opposite. (Basically it depends on whether you come at the leap second "from below" or "from above". I'll send the longwinded details in a separate message, if anyone actually cares.) So I'm right, and you're right, and Warner's right, and Steve Allen is especially right in his assertion that it's just inherently, fundamentally ambiguous. > > My own errors were, > > Standby. Not errors yet :-) Well, see, when I subtracted 23:59:60 from 00:00:35 and got 35, (that was for 2015-06-30T23:59:60), I was using an imperfectly leapsecond-aware tool tool that normalized 23:59:60 to 00:00:00, so I got a misleading answer. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs