3 ms·

People had agreed on GMT before that. Because we kept getting hit with bugs related to day light saving people invented UTC instead. We have IAT if you want a

People had agreed on GMT before that. Because we kept getting hit with bugs related to day light saving people invented UTC instead. We have IAT if you want a monotonic measure of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time Use the right tool for the right job. UTC is what it is. Trying to redefine it is as stupid as redefining a foot so 3 feet are a meter exactly.

ncmncm 4y ago
You seem to have missed that everyone is already on UTC, and will not change to satisfy your sense of esthetics. Fixing UTC by simply not declaring any new leap seconds eliminates all problems. What used to break on a semi-regular basis stops breaking. Nobody suffers. Nobody pays. No problems surface.
- occoder 4y ago
  Having read a lot of the comments here, I tend to agree with you. Leap seconds have not sit well with me ever since I learned about them. Messing with the number of seconds in a certain minute a few times a year just seemed ... unclean. So if fellow commenters are right, that without leap seconds it would take 6667 years for the time to drift just one hour, then leap seconds are absolutely more trouble than their worth, and we should drop it this instant and try to come up with a solution for that leap hour in the next six milleniums.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    If you don't want leap seconds use TAI. If you do want leap seconds use UTC. This is like people saying that we shouldn't have daylight savings so we should redefine GMT to not have DST. That is not only stupid but breaks all use cases where you care about historical DST. This is why we have UTC, it's GMT - DST. People in 1960 could figure this out. Are we so incompetent that our grandfathers were better programmers than us?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Hint: GMT does not, in fact, have DST. It doesn't even have Summer Time. Crap programmers' grandparents were no better than they are. We live with it all. All their code doesn't work right and won't be fixed. But, stop breaking it with leap seconds, and it will stay not broken.

ncmncm 4y ago

You seem to have missed that everyone is already on UTC, and will not change to satisfy your sense of esthetics. Fixing UTC by simply not declaring any new leap seconds eliminates all problems. What used to break on a semi-regular basis stops breaking. Nobody suffers. Nobody pays. No problems surface.

occoder 4y ago
Having read a lot of the comments here, I tend to agree with you. Leap seconds have not sit well with me ever since I learned about them. Messing with the number of seconds in a certain minute a few times a year just seemed ... unclean. So if fellow commenters are right, that without leap seconds it would take 6667 years for the time to drift just one hour, then leap seconds are absolutely more trouble than their worth, and we should drop it this instant and try to come up with a solution for that leap hour in the next six milleniums.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  If you don't want leap seconds use TAI. If you do want leap seconds use UTC. This is like people saying that we shouldn't have daylight savings so we should redefine GMT to not have DST. That is not only stupid but breaks all use cases where you care about historical DST. This is why we have UTC, it's GMT - DST. People in 1960 could figure this out. Are we so incompetent that our grandfathers were better programmers than us?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Hint: GMT does not, in fact, have DST. It doesn't even have Summer Time. Crap programmers' grandparents were no better than they are. We live with it all. All their code doesn't work right and won't be fixed. But, stop breaking it with leap seconds, and it will stay not broken.