On 2017-02-03 11:24 PM, Tom Van Baak wrote:
Hi Warner,
But consider TAI and UTC when they were equal, for the sake of
argument. I know they never were, but if we look at what the first one
would look like:
That's a nice, clear example. Thanks.
23:59:58 23:59:58
Warner Losh said:
> It's understanding what the weird math is that I'm having trouble with
> for people that say it is after the leap second that the delta
> changes.
[Not picking on Warner; this was just a convenient hook.]
I've been looking at this topic for work purposes and ended up doing a f
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
be designed to handle this case or not bother?
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org | it will g
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Now define the "linearization" of a broken-down time as:
>
> L = D*86400 + H*3600 + M*60 + S
>
> In TAI, L is the number of seconds since 00:00:00 on the epoch date.
>
> In UTC L is *NOT* the number of seconds since anything useful, b
On Sat, 2017-02-04 at 16:41 +, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people
> think the
> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data
> structures
> be designed to handle this case or not bother?
>
I think it is very unlikely
Yes, of course. This is not the 1960's where saving a byte was an all-day
decision. The spec is clear. Follow it.
While there's sufficient evidence the earth is slowing down over astronomical
time due to tidal forces, it's also quite clear that the earth has been
speeding up over the past 30 ye
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
> be designed to handle this case or not bother?
Doubtful, but not impossible.
LoD w
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
>> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
>> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
>> be designed to handle this
Warner wrote:
> I think this is the crux of my problem with Tom's answer to my first
> leap second question. We have two times, that are obviously different
> that when subtracted produce 0 as the answer. x-y = 0 should only be
> true when x and y are the same. But we get that answer when they are
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Steve Summit wrote:
> Warner wrote:
>> I think this is the crux of my problem with Tom's answer to my first
>> leap second question. We have two times, that are obviously different
>> that when subtracted produce 0 as the answer. x-y = 0 should only be
>> true when
On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather wrote:
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think the
probability is that TAI-UTC will ever be negative? Should data structures
be designed to handle this case or not bothe
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
> On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think
>>> the
>>> probability is that TAI-UTC will ever b
On 2017-02-04 03:27 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Brooks Harris wrote:
On 2017-02-04 12:24 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Clive D.W. Feather
wrote:
Looking only into the future, not historical data, what do people think
the
probability is tha
13 matches
Mail list logo
