5 ms·

If the drift is 18s over 50 yrs then it doesn't address your issue to any noticable degree throughout your life. Nor that of your children, grandchildren etc e

If the drift is 18s over 50 yrs then it doesn't address your issue to any noticable degree throughout your life. Nor that of your children, grandchildren etc etc, as the change is gradual enough that nobody would notice. The only way to get a significant difference is by somehow sleeping for thousands of years (1k would be 6 minutes, which would still be impossible to tell with human senses). It really is a pretty pointless solution to a non-existing problem.

wpietri 5y ago
If you're saying it is only a little worse in the short term, I agree. But it is still worse at its primary purpose. And in exchange for what exactly? Making it easier on a few programmers to not write a few bugs? If these were the only bugs that ever got written, I might buy it. But we all know that's not the case. Adopting a less correct timekeeping system will reduce the total number of bugs written by 0.000000001%. That is putting the cart firmly before the horse. Computers are here to serve people, not the other way around. Whenever we find ourselves making systems worse due to engineer convenience, we should think real hard about why we get paid the big bucks.
- hansvm 5y ago
  > adopting a less correct timekeeping system Precisely the opposite, and that's the root of the problem. We started with astronomical clock ticks and have gradually transitioned to progressively more accurate measurements. The attempt to maintain synchronization with astronomical units is for backward compatibility, not because they're more correct.
  - wpietri 5y ago
    Again, I disagree. Humans invented timekeeping to aid their internal sense of time, which is based on how our planet moves. That's still by far the primary use case for clocks. I agree that for a narrow set of science/technology use cases, a more abstract notion of time is useful. In those narrow realms, it makes sense to stick with the more abstract system. E.g., the way "these three navigation systems broadcast a continuous monotonic clock signal that is not influenced by leap seconds" is reasonable in context. But once we leave those narrow contexts, we need to translate back to the actual human purpose that kicked all of that off. Which again, is what happens: "navigation satellites do transmit when leap seconds happen". Insisting that we make the actual system worse from the perspective of most humans for the convenience of technologists is a mistake. Even more so when we do it in the name of abstract ideas.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - 411111111111111 5y ago
      The oldest people will have a difference of maybe 40 seconds from the point they were born to their death. There is nobody who can tell the difference, so I call bullshit on the thesis that the average person profits from this. I haven't had to implement anything like this, but as an observer it just feels like a pointless effort. But it's already decided, so we will have to live with it no matter how pointless it is.
      - wpietri 5y ago
        I didn't say "the average person profits from this". And I also don't believe it. So if you'd like to call bullshit on that, you've replied to the wrong comment.

wpietri 5y ago

If you're saying it is only a little worse in the short term, I agree. But it is still worse at its primary purpose. And in exchange for what exactly? Making it easier on a few programmers to not write a few bugs? If these were the only bugs that ever got written, I might buy it. But we all know that's not the case. Adopting a less correct timekeeping system will reduce the total number of bugs written by 0.000000001%. That is putting the cart firmly before the horse. Computers are here to serve people, not the other way around. Whenever we find ourselves making systems worse due to engineer convenience, we should think real hard about why we get paid the big bucks.

hansvm 5y ago
> adopting a less correct timekeeping system Precisely the opposite, and that's the root of the problem. We started with astronomical clock ticks and have gradually transitioned to progressively more accurate measurements. The attempt to maintain synchronization with astronomical units is for backward compatibility, not because they're more correct.
- wpietri 5y ago
  Again, I disagree. Humans invented timekeeping to aid their internal sense of time, which is based on how our planet moves. That's still by far the primary use case for clocks. I agree that for a narrow set of science/technology use cases, a more abstract notion of time is useful. In those narrow realms, it makes sense to stick with the more abstract system. E.g., the way "these three navigation systems broadcast a continuous monotonic clock signal that is not influenced by leap seconds" is reasonable in context. But once we leave those narrow contexts, we need to translate back to the actual human purpose that kicked all of that off. Which again, is what happens: "navigation satellites do transmit when leap seconds happen". Insisting that we make the actual system worse from the perspective of most humans for the convenience of technologists is a mistake. Even more so when we do it in the name of abstract ideas.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 411111111111111 5y ago
    The oldest people will have a difference of maybe 40 seconds from the point they were born to their death. There is nobody who can tell the difference, so I call bullshit on the thesis that the average person profits from this. I haven't had to implement anything like this, but as an observer it just feels like a pointless effort. But it's already decided, so we will have to live with it no matter how pointless it is.
    - wpietri 5y ago
      I didn't say "the average person profits from this". And I also don't believe it. So if you'd like to call bullshit on that, you've replied to the wrong comment.