4 ms·

Leap seconds are a change to the number of UTC epoch seconds.

by rspeer 10y ago

wyager 10y ago
> Leap seconds are a change to the number of UTC epoch seconds. UTC is different from epoch time. Epoch time by definition does not count leap seconds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time
- zerd 10y ago
  But it is affected by leap seconds. According to the example labeled "Unix time across midnight when a UTC leap second was inserted on 1 January 1999" the unix time went backwards. So using epoch/unix time does not help.
- EGreg 10y ago
  Is it safe to say that time() in php and Date.now() in JS do not care about leap seconds?
  - perennate 10y ago
    From [1], it is likely messier than that: > The time() function will resolve to the system time of that server. If the server is running an NTP daemon then it will be leap second aware and adjust accordingly. PHP has no knowledge of this, but the system does. > It took me a long time to understand this, but what happens is that the timestamp increases during the leap second, and when the leap second is over, the timestamp (but not the UTC!) jumps back one second. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7780464/is-time-guaranteed-to-be-leap-second-aware http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7780464/is-time-guarantee...
    - EGreg 10y ago
      It would seem much simpler to just use TAI for timestamps, and get civil datetimes from UTC. Why didn't people do this? Why use UTC for timestamps??
      - rspeer 10y ago
        That doesn't seem simpler at all. - UTC timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future; TAI timestamps cannot, because it is unknown how many seconds will be in each year. - Converting UTC timestamps to human-readable UTC times is simple modular arithmetic. A beginner in any programming language can do it. Converting TAI to UTC requires a lookup table, and it must be updated after the software is released. What would be simpler would be ending the use of leap seconds for a millennium or so.
        userbinator 10y ago
        "- UTC timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future; TAI timestamps cannot, because it is unknown how many seconds will be in each year." Isn't it the other way around, since TAI has no leap seconds? "What would be simpler would be ending the use of leap seconds for a millennium or so." That effectively means using TAI consistently, which is what software not aware of leap seconds would be doing anyway (despite the fact that it's actually working with UTC.)
        rspeer 10y ago
        TAI has no leap seconds, but years, as currently defined, do. And yes, I'm advocating for changing that definition, and making UTC a constant offset from TAI that works the same as TAI for the foreseeable future.
        nshepperd 10y ago
        TAI timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future. You can subtract the TAI timestamp from the current time, set an alarm for that number of seconds and it will actually occur on cue. TAI timestamps don't refer unambiguously to UTC timestamps or calendar dates in the future, because the latter two depend on the variable rotation of the earth and (for zoned times) geopolitical whimsy. I don't see why this matters though - most "timestamps" are for events in the past. The proper representation for events in the future will depend on your application (eg. are you writing a calendar for humans, or a spacecraft guidance system - does the event happen at a fixed point in time or a fixed point in the human work day?).
- nshepperd 10y ago
  "Does not count leap seconds" has to win some kind of award for misleading terminology. I'd wager it's responsible for a significant portion of leap second bugs due to confusion & misunderstanding about what Unix time is: It sounds like what it means is that Unix time counts the number of real, actual, by-the-clock seconds that have passed since the epoch. That would be logical. But what it actually means is that it counts the number of real, actual, by-the-clock seconds, minus the number of those those that have been designated "leap seconds". That is to say, whenever a "leap second" occurs, the nice monotonic isotonic progress of unix time is mutilated by suddenly adding or removing 1 to the total count so far. That's what "does not count leap seconds" means, and sometimes even what "ignores leap seconds" means (which is of course even worse terminology).
  - wyager 10y ago
    Shit, you're right. It had me totally fooled.

Leap seconds are a change to the number of UTC epoch seconds.

by rspeer 10y ago

Leap seconds are a change to the number of UTC epoch seconds.

> Leap seconds are a change to the number of UTC epoch seconds. UTC is different from epoch time. Epoch time by definition does not count leap seconds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

zerd 10y ago
But it is affected by leap seconds. According to the example labeled "Unix time across midnight when a UTC leap second was inserted on 1 January 1999" the unix time went backwards. So using epoch/unix time does not help.
EGreg 10y ago
Is it safe to say that time() in php and Date.now() in JS do not care about leap seconds?
- perennate 10y ago
  From [1], it is likely messier than that: > The time() function will resolve to the system time of that server. If the server is running an NTP daemon then it will be leap second aware and adjust accordingly. PHP has no knowledge of this, but the system does. > It took me a long time to understand this, but what happens is that the timestamp increases during the leap second, and when the leap second is over, the timestamp (but not the UTC!) jumps back one second. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7780464/is-time-guaranteed-to-be-leap-second-aware http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7780464/is-time-guarantee...
  - EGreg 10y ago
    It would seem much simpler to just use TAI for timestamps, and get civil datetimes from UTC. Why didn't people do this? Why use UTC for timestamps??
    - rspeer 10y ago
      That doesn't seem simpler at all. - UTC timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future; TAI timestamps cannot, because it is unknown how many seconds will be in each year. - Converting UTC timestamps to human-readable UTC times is simple modular arithmetic. A beginner in any programming language can do it. Converting TAI to UTC requires a lookup table, and it must be updated after the software is released. What would be simpler would be ending the use of leap seconds for a millennium or so.
      - userbinator 10y ago
        "- UTC timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future; TAI timestamps cannot, because it is unknown how many seconds will be in each year." Isn't it the other way around, since TAI has no leap seconds? "What would be simpler would be ending the use of leap seconds for a millennium or so." That effectively means using TAI consistently, which is what software not aware of leap seconds would be doing anyway (despite the fact that it's actually working with UTC.)
        rspeer 10y ago
        TAI has no leap seconds, but years, as currently defined, do. And yes, I'm advocating for changing that definition, and making UTC a constant offset from TAI that works the same as TAI for the foreseeable future.
      - nshepperd 10y ago
        TAI timestamps can unambiguously refer to times years in the future. You can subtract the TAI timestamp from the current time, set an alarm for that number of seconds and it will actually occur on cue. TAI timestamps don't refer unambiguously to UTC timestamps or calendar dates in the future, because the latter two depend on the variable rotation of the earth and (for zoned times) geopolitical whimsy. I don't see why this matters though - most "timestamps" are for events in the past. The proper representation for events in the future will depend on your application (eg. are you writing a calendar for humans, or a spacecraft guidance system - does the event happen at a fixed point in time or a fixed point in the human work day?).
nshepperd 10y ago
"Does not count leap seconds" has to win some kind of award for misleading terminology. I'd wager it's responsible for a significant portion of leap second bugs due to confusion & misunderstanding about what Unix time is: It sounds like what it means is that Unix time counts the number of real, actual, by-the-clock seconds that have passed since the epoch. That would be logical. But what it actually means is that it counts the number of real, actual, by-the-clock seconds, minus the number of those those that have been designated "leap seconds". That is to say, whenever a "leap second" occurs, the nice monotonic isotonic progress of unix time is mutilated by suddenly adding or removing 1 to the total count so far. That's what "does not count leap seconds" means, and sometimes even what "ignores leap seconds" means (which is of course even worse terminology).
- wyager 10y ago
  Shit, you're right. It had me totally fooled.