4 ms·
> It’s really both fine and up to our grand-grand-grand-grand-etc-children to decide. I'd rather build gradual adjustments into our systems so that they have t
by organsnyder 2y ago
> It’s really both fine and up to our grand-grand-grand-grand-etc-children to decide.
I'd rather build gradual adjustments into our systems so that they have to be resilient to this sort of thing. Sure, leaving it up to our distant descendants is enticing, but then they're going to have a Y2K-sized problem to fix. I'd rather leave a legacy of systems that were designed to be resilient.
- School-Cotton 2y ago> then they're going to have a Y2K-sized problem to fix. No they aren't. tzdb updates happen several times a year already, and you don't notice.
- organsnyder 2y agoThe suggestion I was responding to was to basically stop doing this.
- School-Cotton 2y agoI thought it was suggesting exactly the opposite: that we handle this with tzdb updates, not leap seconds.
- skrebbel 2y agoYep! (assuming our grand-grand-grand-grand-etc-children still have something like a tzdb)
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]