4 ms·
> They’re political divisions Which I think is perfectly fine (if not necessary) for that layer. The human body doesn't care for extra seconds, and science doe
by groestl 8y ago
> They’re political divisions
Which I think is perfectly fine (if not necessary) for that layer. The human body doesn't care for extra seconds, and science doesn't either. So who do we do the "coordination" in UTC for? If - over hundreds of years - the time zone drifts off into weirdness, it can be changed politically. What more do you need?
- majewsky 8y agoTime zones need to be defined relative to some reference time, and UTC is (sort of) the least impractical reference.
- groestl 8y agoUTC adds little of value on top of TAI, except some headache for clock synchronization. So I argue for basing timezones directly on TAI, as I see TAI as the least impractical reference.
- max76 8y agoOh. In UT1 there number of seconds in a day is constant, so it's value is defined by the rotation of the earth which is slowing. UTC is better than UT1 in that regard. Maybe UT1 is fine for humans, but really humans just assume ut1.