On Mon 2022-11-14T23:44:54+ Michael Deckers via LEAPSECS hath writ:
> The reason why the CIPM (for now) sticks to the requirement that
> |UTC - UT1| be bounded is most probably the argument brought forward
> by some people from ISO who say that, without explicit bound on
> |UTC - UT1|, UTC
On 2022-11-14 19:48, Steve Allen wrote:
The NYT article ends with Arias ruminating about how someday
there will have to be a leap minute or leap hour.
Of course, nobody will propose leap minutes or leap hours in UTC
after 2135 just to decrease the difference UTC - UT1.
The
Steve Allen writes:
> On Mon 2022-11-14T21:22:27+ Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> > I doubt the will manage to convince the other 99+% to do something
> > as deranged as a leap-minute.
>
> > Thanks to timezones and DST, less than 1% of the worlds population
> > live where mean solar
Poul-Henning Kamp said:
> Full hour shifts, on the other hand, can be done merely by changing
> the time-zone, and they can be done through the normal political
> process, aligned to recognized borders.
Something I've been arguing for a long time.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to
On Mon 2022-11-14T21:22:27+ Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> I doubt the will manage to convince the other 99+% to do something
> as deranged as a leap-minute.
> Thanks to timezones and DST, less than 1% of the worlds population
> live where mean solar time is correct to a minute.
The reason
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote in
<202211142122.2aelmriv024...@critter.freebsd.dk>:
|
|Eric Scace writes:
|
|> If a leap minute were to be added/removed at some future date
|> when UTC became significantly more that 30 seconds different from
|> mean solar time, [...]
|
|Thanks to
Eric Scace writes:
> If a leap minute were to be added/removed at some future date
> when UTC became significantly more that 30 seconds different from
> mean solar time, [...]
Thanks to timezones and DST, less than 1% of the worlds population
live where mean solar time is correct to a
Eric Scace wrote in
<210d4e22-f86b-4ebe-b6ea-fe6b4fbff...@scace.org>:
| If a leap minute were to be added/removed at some future date when \
| UTC became significantly more that 30 seconds different from mean \
| solar time, many years could be made available (e.g., 20 years!) \
| to
If a leap minute were to be added/removed at some future date when UTC
became significantly more that 30 seconds different from mean solar time, many
years could be made available (e.g., 20 years!) to retire/replace/rewrite
software for such an unusual event whose occurrence is on a KNOWN
Joseph Gwinn writes:
> And the likelihood is that software written (at great expense) to
> prepare for what will be in 30 years from now will be a dead loss,
> outmaneuvered by technological and scientific progress.
I would never attempt that.
My point is more that you get a lot of
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:26:07 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> Joseph Gwinn writes:
>
>>> I believe I recently saw PHK ruminating that forward compatibility in
>>> computing is at least as important as backward compatibility because
>>> the next 30 years of software need to know where
Joseph Gwinn writes:
> > I believe I recently saw PHK ruminating that forward compatibility in
> > computing is at least as important as backward compatibility because
> > the next 30 years of software need to know where they are going.
The other side of my arguent is that more software
On Mon, 14 Nov 2022 11:48:12 -0800, Steve Allen wrote:
> On Mon 2022-11-14T18:27:25+ Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
>> And with a 2035 deadline we might just get to see if our implementations
>> of negative leap-seconds work before it is too late.
>>
>> Yes, it should have happened 20 years
On Mon 2022-11-14T18:27:25+ Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> And with a 2035 deadline we might just get to see if our implementations
> of negative leap-seconds work before it is too late.
>
> Yes, it should have happened 20 years ago.
I believe I recently saw PHK ruminating that forward
Warner Losh writes:
> I'm happy to see this... I talked to Judah 20-odd years ago about this and
> he was hopeful then.
And with a 2035 deadline we might just get to see if our implementations
of negative leap-seconds work before it is too late.
Yes, it should have happened 20 years
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 10:40 AM Steve Allen wrote:
> Starting tomorrow the CGPM meets in Paris.
> Resolution D says leap seconds must die.
> CGPM will almost certainly approve that resolution.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/science/time-leap-second.html
I'm happy to see this... I
Starting tomorrow the CGPM meets in Paris.
Resolution D says leap seconds must die.
CGPM will almost certainly approve that resolution.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/14/science/time-leap-second.html
--
Steve Allen WGS-84 (GPS)
UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB 260
17 matches
Mail list logo
