3 ms·
Your article is from 2003 [1], so when they say "by 2028" they don't mean six years from now. Since the article was published we've gone from positive leap sec
by jefftk 4y ago
Your article is from 2003 [1], so when they say "by 2028" they don't mean six years from now.
Since the article was published we've gone from positive leap seconds every so often to looking like we may get the first ever negative leap second: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Leapsecond.ut1-utc.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Leapseco...
Which means the article's estimates on how long it will be until we're off by a given amount of time are very much obsolete.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20030801000000*/https://www.ucolick.org/~sla/leapsecs/dutc.html https://web.archive.org/web/20030801000000*/https://www.ucol...
- amptorn 4y agoI think that observation just lends further weight to the argument that the relationship between atomic time and universal time is a dynamic and unpredictable thing, which we need to handle correctly rather than pretending it doesn't exist.
- ncmncm 4y agoThat it is dynamic and unpredictable is exactly why we should not force everybody to track it. Some people: astronomers and orbital mechanicos are obliged to care about sidereal time, regardless. Making me deal with it too is pure tax with exactly zero benefit.