4 ms·
I hadn't thought about that, but I'd actually like to see if it's better to do the opposite. Insert half a leap second twice as frequently as we currently do w
by prng2021 2y ago
I hadn't thought about that, but I'd actually like to see if it's better to do the opposite. Insert half a leap second twice as frequently as we currently do with a leap second. If that's successful, switch to inserting a quarter leap second and so on, maybe until we get to a state where we adjust a tiny fraction of a leap second on a daily basis. The point is that even if you have a system screw up time adjustment 1 day, it's such a small time error that shouldn't affect anything, and people can immediately work on fixing it.
And actually, what you explained about waiting until some significant threshold like 5 minutes is already something we do today in a way. It's just that we wait years and our threshold is 1 second before we actually make a change.
- Karellen 2y agoI don't think the threshhold is that significant. The main difference I'd like to see is that we apply the change to timezones, not to the underlying "count number of seconds" clock. But I think timezones aren't able to be specified to sub-minute precision, so 5 minutes is just as good as 1 minute.