3 ms·

If we're going to change time standards then we might as well just get rid of our current system of leap seconds altogether; I have never been able to find a go

If we're going to change time standards then we might as well just get rid of our current system of leap seconds altogether; I have never been able to find a good practical reason for them and the current UTC system doesn't even solve long-term time-keeping issues very well. All things considered it doesn't really strike me a problem that perception of time drifts by a few hours over a period of thousands of years, but if we really want to account for that then we can do it with a regular system – the slowing down of the earth's rotation is not completely regular in the short term, but it is in the long term. But realistically, just don't use leap seconds and check again in a thousand years or so. Who even knows what the world will look like then.

wongarsu 4y ago
You're basically describing TAI (International atomic time). UTC is just TAI with leap seconds applied, as I understand it mostly for political reasons (it was easier to get everyone to use atomic time if it's at most a 0.9 seconds off from the observational method used before). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  Pretty much, yes, or a new standard which is regular that solves the unpredictability problem of leap seconds, as well as the "time actually doesn't work like almost everyone on the planet thinks it does"-problem.
- naniwaduni 4y ago
  We also have GPS time, which is TAI minus 19 seconds, which is probably the most "popular" monotonic time standard we have on the back of, well, GPS. Lots of choices!
amluto 4y ago
Changing the time standard would be a huge international discussion involving many stakeholders, but that’s not at all what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting a new standard specifically for computers, not for commerce. The industry would agree on a smearing of time and anyone who wants to can use it at their discretion. And if the standard was at all sensible, it would say that one SHOULD NOT use it in any protocol intended to synchronize time between computers unless that protocol explicitly indicates whether the time is smeared. The status quo is embarrassingly bad for interoperability. It’s a kludge implemented in a hurry to avoid a repeat of some bugs being triggered. The industry can and should do better.

wongarsu 4y ago

You're basically describing TAI (International atomic time). UTC is just TAI with leap seconds applied, as I understand it mostly for political reasons (it was easier to get everyone to use atomic time if it's at most a 0.9 seconds off from the observational method used before). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Time

Beltalowda 4y ago
Pretty much, yes, or a new standard which is regular that solves the unpredictability problem of leap seconds, as well as the "time actually doesn't work like almost everyone on the planet thinks it does"-problem.
naniwaduni 4y ago
We also have GPS time, which is TAI minus 19 seconds, which is probably the most "popular" monotonic time standard we have on the back of, well, GPS. Lots of choices!

amluto 4y ago

Changing the time standard would be a huge international discussion involving many stakeholders, but that’s not at all what I’m suggesting. I’m suggesting a new standard specifically for computers, not for commerce. The industry would agree on a smearing of time and anyone who wants to can use it at their discretion. And if the standard was at all sensible, it would say that one SHOULD NOT use it in any protocol intended to synchronize time between computers unless that protocol explicitly indicates whether the time is smeared. The status quo is embarrassingly bad for interoperability. It’s a kludge implemented in a hurry to avoid a repeat of some bugs being triggered. The industry can and should do better.