[LEAPSECS] *** SPAM *** Re: leap minute or hour

[mike at lumieresimaginaire.com]

Le 19.11.2022 05:40, Warner Losh a écrit :

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 9:34 PM Zefram via LEAPSECS 
> <leapsecs at 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 at leapsecond.com
> https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs