Le 19.11.2022 05:40, Warner Losh a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:34 PM Zefram via LEAPSECS
<leapsecs@leapsecond.com> wrote:
Alternatively, why does | UTC - UT1 | need to be bounded? If we let it
accumulate
to an arbitrary level, and distributed UTC - UT1 to anybody that needed
it, then
that would accomplish the same thing that adding leap seconds does now,
without
the approximation that UTC ~ UT1. All applications that care updated to
use this value
could even have a higher level of performance without the need to hope
that the UTC
approximation is 'good enough'. This completely eliminates leap seconds
from timekeeping
while putting the onus on the applications that care to pay the freight
while removing
the leap second tax from the 99.99% of applications that don't care.
Warner
So they finally went and did it. dUT1 has been heading for and bobbling
around zero for so long I had fogotten that the CGPM was taking place.
The cut off date is 13 years away so we still have time for another leap
second. Judging by current predictions it could even be negative. Lots
of head scratching to come if that looks likely. Warners option looks a
good one for CGPM 2026. Anything else is kicking disaster down the road.
It looks like I'm out of the frame with proposing going back to rubbery
seconds for civil time.
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
_______________________________________________
LEAPSECS mailing list
LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com
https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
